HIV/AIDS: London

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the latest figures for HIV/AIDS infection in Greater London; the ethnic origin of these cases; and the ratio of males and females infected.

Lord Warner: My Lords, 19,103 people who were diagnosed with HIV and were resident in London were seen for care in 2003. About 3,000 of those were new diagnoses. Of the total cases, 8,954 were reported as white and 7,133 as black African. The remainder were reported as black Carribbean, black unspecified, mixed race, Asian or oriental, or their ethnicity was not recorded. Nearly 69 per cent were males and about 31 per cent were females. There were 281 AIDS cases diagnosed and 203 deaths in London during 2003.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is clear that there is a high percentage of HIV cases in London compared to the national figure. Does he accept the view of the Terrence Higgins Trust that one-third of HIV cases are still undiagnosed? What more could be done to avoid the stigma that prevent people applying for testing, because they are so concerned about how that might affect their jobs, insurance or something of that type?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we do recognise that there is an issue regarding undiagnosed cases and we are in regular contact with the Terrence Higgins Trust. However, it is also true that the number of undiagnosed cases actually dropped between 2002 and 2003 from 31 per cent to 27 per cent.

Lord Laming: My Lords, as prevention is such an important matter, can the Minister assure the House that a robust education programme is in place?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as the annual report of Health Protection Agency, from which these figures are derived, makes clear, prevention is a key issue in tackling those particular problems. The Government's White Paper on public health made clear last week that we shall have a new sexual health campaign which will target younger people. That will help considerably with the issues around HIV/AIDS.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how does the Minister know the exact number of undiagnosed cases if they are undiagnosed?

Lord Warner: My Lords, these are estimates by the Health Protection Agency. I shall write to the noble Baroness, giving her further and better particulars.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will share that information with all of us. He mentioned the sexual health strategy. The recent public health White Paper made no mention at all of HIV/AIDS. Will some of the £45 million committed to the sexual health strategy be ring-fenced for work on HIV/AIDS in general and for those communities that are most at risk?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness understates the Government's commitment to expenditure on sexually transmitted diseases. In the White Paper we have committed ourselves to spending £300 million more, some of which will be £50 million on a new campaign, which I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We will be doing much to improve the services for chlamydia, expand genito-urinary medical services and improve conception services. I shall write to the noble Baroness with full details.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what emphasis do the Government place on long-term, faithful monogamous relationships in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we always prefer long-standing and monogamous relationships, where they are appropriate and are the wishes of the individuals concerned. If the noble Lord is moving on to the territory of abstinence, there is no evidence that "abstinence only" education is effective.

Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can the Minister indicate the current cost of treating people with HIV/AIDS in this country?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the figures vary considerably and I would not wish to hazard a guess at this moment, but I shall look into the matter and give the noble Lord our best estimates.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any link between HIV/AIDS and the alarming increase in tuberculosis in London? Many people believe that it was such a lack of immunity that enabled TB to return.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that some of those who have HIV/AIDS come from parts of the world where TB is also endemic and we know that many people often have both infections. I do not know the science of the links between those diseases, but there is certainly some link regarding the individuals.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, what are the rates of transmission of HIV/AIDS in the Greater London area from mother to infant? Do those figures meet any target that the Department of Health may have set?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the London figures, but we know that ante-natal HIV screening is a success story nationally. In England in 2003 it was estimated that at least 92 per cent of HIV-infected women were diagnosed before delivery. The national target for 2002 for the proportion of HIV-infected women who were diagnosed before delivery was not only met, but exceeded, in both 2002 and 2003.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what percentage of the 3,000 new cases was due to lack of needle exchange regarding the injection of drugs compared with other causes?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that figure in my brief but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Gas and Electricity Supplies: Winter Demand

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the recent reports by National Grid Transco and Ofgem, they are satisfied that there will be adequate supplies of gas and electricity to meet the winter demand, including demand in exceptional circumstances.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, National Grid Transco's Winter Outlook Report was published by Ofgem on 20 October. It concluded that there is enough electricity-generating capacity to meet demand, even in a very severe winter. The forecast plant margin is now nearly 22 per cent, up from the 20.2 per cent mentioned in the Winter Outlook Report, and it could rise still higher if generators bring more mothballed plant back into service. As for gas, the report states that gas supplies can also be maintained using a combination of supplies from the UK continental shelf, gas imports, storage and demand management where necessary, even in a winter of the severity expected only once every 50 years.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said, but does he not agree that a disturbing factor in this situation is that the depletion of our North Sea reserves is happening faster than was anticipated and that the additional import infrastructures are unlikely to be in place before 2007? Furthermore, does he agree that that has been reflected in forward prices? The price of gas has recently increased substantially in the wake of oil price increases. Compared with the current price of 30 pence per therm, the forward sales of gas for the first quarter of next year have risen to 53 pence per therm, even though the price of oil has stabilised. Does that not suggest that the market fears a shortage of gas?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is certainly true that gas supplies for the next two winters are likely to be tighter than in previous years due to the long-term decline in production from the North Sea. But it is encouraging that we have seen market participants coming forward with an expanded range of gas import projects, including new gas interconnectors, major new gas import pipelines from Norway and three new terminals to import liquefied natural gas. So we are seeing a new infrastructure coming into place. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, with those projects coming on stream, we expect the supply of gas to be significantly increased in time for winter 2006-07. We have seen prices come back recently, which shows that the market is not now anticipating major problems this winter.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the Minister made no mention of the contribution that renewables could make to the situation. Is that because the Ministry of Defence is continuing to oppose planning permission for the erection of wind turbines in south-west Scotland and in other areas which are very suitable for wind turbines? Can the Minister say whether any consideration has been given to when the blocking of such planning permission will be withdrawn?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously in the long term we are looking to renewables to make a major contribution but that subject is not relevant to the Question, which concerns what will happen this year. Whatever happens in relation to renewables, it will not affect the situation to any great extent.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, looking to the longer term, given the decline in United Kingdom supplies, to which the noble Lord referred, and the uncertainty of some overseas sources of supply, is it not now time to investigate further and more carefully the prospect of making gas from coal, given that at present unused and extensive supplies of coal are lying idle?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly we are going to become a net importer of gas and, as I explained, the market participants are putting in place strategies to import gas. It will come in via a number of different supply routes and from diverse sources around the world, and that should enable us to have a stable supply of gas. So far as concerns gas from coal, we are continually looking at the different technological options available.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, following on from the question from my noble friend, as about 30 per cent of Europe's gas supplies come from Ukraine and given the current threat of civil disturbance there, which I believe underlines the fragile nature of those sources of supply—a matter about which we spoke continually during our debates on the Energy Bill—can the Minister tell the House in a little more detail than he gave in his previous answer what the Government will now do to reduce this dependence on overseas supplies and certainly those from potentially unstable countries?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I hope I explained in response to the previous question, we are already taking action, and have been doing so over a number of years, to make certain that our supplies come from a range of different parts of the world and by different routes. That means that we are already strongly diversifying the supply which comes into this country.

Lord Elton: My Lords, in seeking to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his substantive reply the noble Lord said that one thing that we would use would be demand regulation. Does that mean telling some people that they cannot have it when they want it, and is that not what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is concerned about?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, my Lords, I did not say "demand regulation"; I said "demand management". Obviously if the price of particular fuels increases, the participants in the market will switch demand to other areas. In a situation described by Ofgem as a "Siberia-style winter"—that is, one winter in 50—we would see prices in some areas go up and that would lead to some shift in demand between different sources of supply. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible situation in such extreme conditions.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not likely that, as the price of fossil fuel increases, heat pumps will come into their own in a country like Britain which has a moderately high temperature in the winter?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are always plenty of different options for dealing with the situation. I was trying to reassure the noble Lord that we would not have to deal with heat pumps this winter because there will be other perfectly good supplies of energy.

Bovine Tuberculosis

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many cattle have been found to have tuberculosis lesions at the time of slaughter in abattoirs between March and September 2004.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we aim to confirm bovine TB on a herd basis through identification of visible lesions at post-mortem examination and/or laboratory culture of Mycobacterium bovis. The number of individual cattle with visible lesions at slaughter is therefore not available. Provisional data run from the State Veterinary Service database show that there were 857 new confirmed TB herd incidents between 1 March and 30 September 2004.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it is ridiculous that taxpayers should pay millions of pounds for cattle to be slaughtered when TB is obviously not being controlled? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government grasped the nettle and allowed farmers to cull—not eradicate—badgers so that healthy badgers can live in healthy setts rather than distribute the TB bacterium? I understand that badgers excrete the bacterium with their urine and faeces and that one millilitre of infected urine is enough to kill a cow.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess and the House will be aware that badger culling trials are still continuing. While the pressure on farmers is recognised, it is by no means established that a culling strategy will control the spread of TB. Indeed, much of the spread of TB is clearly due to cattle movements rather than to movements of badgers. The trials are due to end in 2006. In the mean time, it would be irresponsible to lift the restrictions on badger culling as that would distort the outcome of those trials.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware how ridiculous he and everyone else sound when such trials go on and on? Surely, a conclusion must have been reached by now. Arising out of the Question posed by my noble friend—she is my noble friend wherever she sits—has the Ministry put the herd disposition into counties? Is there a preponderance of herd infection in the south-west that would tally with the badger preponderance in that area as well?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The preponderance of TB cases has occurred in the south-west and to a limited extent in south Wales. It is also true that the spread of TB has been much wider than that. It has moved distances that mean that it is unlikely to have been conveyed by the badger population. While we await the results of the trials on the various forms of badger culling, it is also true that much of the spread has been due to causes other than badgers. As a result of the trials, which will end in 2006, we shall need to work out how best to control the badger population.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether he has had meetings in the past 12 months with the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about their views on TB and badgers and the connection with bovine TB in cattle? He has made an assertion about cattle movements. Does he have any factual, objective information, comparing the British Veterinary Association information with figures for cattle movements?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have not discussed the matter with the British Veterinary Association, but my colleague, Ben Bradshaw, who deals with such matters, has, as had his predecessor, Elliot Morley. Clearly, there is a potential transmission—an actual transmission—from badgers to the cattle population. No one denies that. The issue is how far that has caused the spread of TB and, if one culled the badgers in one way or another, whether one would be able to prevent the spread and not simply allow more unhealthy badgers to move into the area.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, can the Minister explain the ethical distinction between slaughtering cattle that suffer from or have been exposed to tuberculosis and slaughtering badgers that suffer from or have been exposed to tuberculosis? The Government appear to be remarkably complacent about the first situation but very wary about becoming involved in the second.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not a matter of ethical distinction, but what is most effective. Clearly, if a herd has been infected by TB, it is necessary, in effect, to cull that herd. If a farmer sees a badger, he has no way of distinguishing whether that badger is suffering from TB or not. At the moment, subject to the outcome of the tests, badgers are a protected species as is the case with other wildlife. The issue is not the ethics or the classification, but the effectiveness of the control.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if he continues to kill badgers indefinitely, soon there will be no badgers left to kill and that we all love badgers?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for putting a slightly different view from other noble Lords. Clearly, there is an issue about the protection of badgers as well as the protection of cattle. One has to work on evidence to see where the balance arises. That is why we await the completion of the trials.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in reply to an earlier Question, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested that there may be a link between tuberculosis and AIDS in human beings. Have the Government continued to follow up the research on the link between cattle AIDS and cattle tuberculosis?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, historically there was a link between cattle disease and human tuberculosis, but there have been very few cases in recent decades of such a transfer. Clearly, there is continuing research on bovine TB, TB in badgers and TB in humans. The ultimate aim of that is to produce an effective vaccine for cattle and for badgers.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, can the Minister bring the House up to date on the development of a vaccine against bovine tuberculosis and, if one assumes that badgers are important in the transmission of the disease, on the status of the vaccine to be used in badgers?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there is a substantial programme of research into bovine TB, including the provision of a vaccine and a means of delivery of that vaccine for cattle and badgers. We are still some way off the effective deployment of such a vaccine.

People Trafficking

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What support they are giving to a European convention on human trafficking which would uphold the rights of the victims of trafficking.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are participating fully in the negotiations on the draft Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. We support the development of an effective convention which provides protection and support for victims alongside proactive measures to prevent and disrupt trafficking activities. Our commitment to tackling this problem is clear. We have put in place a range of measures to tackle the trafficking and to protect victims. We continue to develop our strategies in this area.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Answer. Therefore, can I take comfort from the fact that the Government are pursuing every possible avenue to bring this matter to an end? Will the submission made by the Government be made available to Members of this House? Will the Government also consider the possibility of giving refugee status to victims of trafficking?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly reassure the noble Lord that we are taking every avenue to bring this matter to an end. The noble Lord will know that we took legislative measures in the previous Session and, indeed, further measures will be taken in this Session.
	I hear what the noble Lord says about the possibility of victims of trafficking being dealt with as refugees. Noble Lords will know that we have continued to look at individual cases on their merits. There are cases where asylum is granted and other measures are taken to give comfort and support to those who are subject to this virulent and vicious crime.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, when will the Government find time to ratify the Palermo protocol?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have taken many of the steps in relation to the Palermo protocol. Noble Lords will know that we have implemented the effects regarding the law. We brought in a number of offences last time. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May of this year, introduces comprehensive offences.
	On the protocol there is one outstanding issue with which we have not yet been able to deal. That is the execution of foreign requests for the seizure of instrumentalities. We intend to address that issue in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which will come before your Lordships very soon.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have an estimate of the number of people involved in this ghastly trafficking?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is very difficult to pinpoint the numbers. In 2000 we had an estimate of between 142 and 1,420. Many have sought to use the larger figure, but we cannot be accurate. In relation to the POPPY Project that the Home Office has funded, we have had 169 referrals. Our strategy is, first, to look at prevention on an international basis and, secondly, to make sure that we have in place the sort of support and identifying instruments that we need in order to make sure that we properly monitor this issue.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted that there is discussion on the convention itself. Are there discussions on a common Europe-wide policy in dealing with those who traffick in human beings, particularly since it seems to be more lucrative than trafficking in drugs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have. The noble Lord will know that on the current convention, one of the huge issues is how we prevent trafficking and how we work together to make sure that it is identified. We have had a number of very good successes. Your Lordships will know of Reflex, which has been brought together to deal with this matter. Moreover, internationally we have dealt with a number of significant issues. For instance, we have signed the European framework decision on trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation. We have worked bilaterally with a number of countries. We have a very good Reflex arrangement with Romania. That is a very good example of a successful overseas initiative.
	At the beginning of 2002 the UK and Romania agreed to establish a central intelligence unit, which was set up in April 2002. During its first year of operational activity 105 criminal groups were identified, 48 were disrupted and 90 individuals were arrested in relation to immigration or trafficking offences. We are rolling out this sort of approach with other countries, including the Czech Republic. It is certainly an issue that we must deal with internationally, robustly and together.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the prevention of trafficking. However, will she consider whether there should be better protection of witnesses in order to secure convictions? In particular will she reflect on the time required for victims of trafficking to make up their minds whether they can give evidence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right in saying that witness protection is important. We are looking very progressively at those matters. In November 2003 we launched the National Witness Mobility Scheme to assist with over 120 referrals from police and local authorities of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, some of whom were victims of human trafficking. In addition, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform is implementing witness care units throughout the country as part of the No Witness, No Justice scheme. They will provide assistance and advice to all types of witnesses, which again would include human trafficking cases.
	We are looking very creatively at the length of time that individuals may need in order to make up their minds whether to help in criminal prosecutions of those who traffick. Those are important issues which are exciting a lot of proper attention and are being addressed.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, with regard to the estimates of those involved in human trafficking, what proportion results from immigrants from Europe or via Europe and how many come here direct?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can give your Lordships our figures on the POPPY scheme. Noble Lords will know that that is just a pilot, but it gives us an indication. Of those we dealt with, 25 per cent were from eastern Europe, 13 per cent were from south-east Asia, 12 per cent were from western Europe and 2 per cent were from Africa. It is quite clear from that breadth of activity that this is not a single-country issue; it is regrettably a phenomenon that we are starting to see across the world. We have to take robust action together internationally to prevent it and to stop certain areas becoming attraction areas for these people. We need to make sure that those matters are very clearly understood.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, a Statement will be repeated this afternoon. The subject of the Statement is the Middle East and Ukraine: recent developments. It will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean and will take place immediately after the three opening speeches on today's debate; that is, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 1 December next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Gardner of Parkes to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Hanningfield.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Economic Affairs

European Union

Mental Health

Merits of Statutory Instruments

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Economic Affairs
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee—
	L. Elder, L. Goodhart, L. Kingsdown, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Lawson of Blaby, L. Layard, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Marsh, L. Sheldon, L. Sheppard of Didgemere, L. Skidelsky, L. Vallance of Tummel, L. Wakeham (Chairman);
	That the committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to such sub-committee any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairman of such sub-committee;
	That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on such sub-committee;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the Economic Affairs Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
	European Union
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union;
	That the expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:
	(i) Any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
	(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
	(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;
	(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
	(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
	(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Bowness, L. Dubs, L. Geddes, L. Grenfell (Chairman), L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Harrison, B. Maddock, L. Marlesford, L. Neill of Bladen, L. Radice, L. Renton of Mount Harry, L. Scott of Foscote, L. Shutt of Greetland, B. Thomas of Walliswood, L. Tomlinson, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L. Wright of Richmond;
	That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
	That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Union Committee or any sub-committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Mental Health
	Moved, That a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:
	B. Barker, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Carter, B. Cumberlege, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. McIntosh of Hudnall, L. Mayhew of Twysden, B. Murphy, B. Pitkeathley, L. Rix, L. Turnberg;
	That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
	That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	And that the committee do report on the draft Bill by 31 March 2005. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
	Merits of Statutory Instruments
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, being:
	(i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;
	(ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
	(iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative or negative resolution;
	but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act;
	with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:
	(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;
	(b) that it is inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances since the passage of the parent Act;
	(c) that it inappropriately implements EU legislation;
	(d) that it imperfectly achieves its policy objectives;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Addington, L. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Boston of Faversham, V. Colville of Culross, L. Hunt of Kings Heath (Chairman), L. Jopling, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Methuen, E. Northesk, B. Royall of Blaisdon, V. Ullswater;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clause 7, Schedule 2, Clause 8, Schedule 3, Clause 9, Schedule 4, Clause 10, Schedule 5, Clause 11, Schedule 6, Clauses 12 to 17, Schedule 7, Clauses 18 to 31, Schedule 8, Clauses 32 to 47, Schedule 9, Clauses 48 and 49, Schedule 10, Clause 50, Schedule 11, Clauses 51 to 68, Schedule 12, Clauses 69 to 99, Schedule 13, Clauses 100 to 104, Schedule 14, Clause 105, Schedule 15, Clause 106 to 108.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL]

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Joffe.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have a word about timing on today's resumed debate on the Address. There are 28 Back-Bench speakers and, as the House has already heard, there is also a Statement today. The good news is that if all contributions could be restricted to around nine minutes, we should finish by ten o'clock. "Restricted" is not too cruel a word really because nine minutes is not bad. So that is the advice for today.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by the Baroness Lockwood—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
	"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain next year's proposed home and constitutional affairs legislative programme, and to put it into the context of the Government's wider reform agenda.
	The measures we are proposing for the coming fourth Session build on those we introduced in the past seven years. They are there to provide the nation with a modern legal and constitutional framework fitted to the 21st century, to protect us from existing and new threats at home and abroad, and to provide safeguards for the law-abiding citizen.
	This is not a message of doom and gloom. We have many things to be proud of. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Courts Act 2003 have transformed our criminal justice system. All parts of the system now work more effectively together. We have halved the time it takes to deal with young offenders and introduced more effective community sentences. The British Crime Survey shows rising public confidence in the criminal justice system.
	We have moved away from a silo-based system to one where partnership is the key element. Across government we work more closely together, and at local level the local criminal justice boards and crime and disorder reduction partnerships are driving forward change, providing a flexible response to meet public need.
	Partnership and reform are the watchwords of our legislative programme for this Session. We are consolidating our achievements and adding extra powers where they are needed: adding value to what we have achieved already. All those aspects are key features of our charities, courts and tribunals, drugs and management of offenders Bills.
	The charitable sector in this country is one of our greatest assets. More than a quarter of a million charities are active across every area of our national life, helping to transform the lives of citizens and to revive communities. The Government believe unequivocally that a flourishing, independent charitable sector is essential for the health of our democracy.
	The charities Bill will ensure that the framework of charity law within which charities operate allows them to realise their full potential and to sustain the high level of public confidence that they enjoy. The Bill's measures have been the subject of extensive consultation with charities and are strongly supported by them. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has described the Bill as a vital opportunity to modernise charity law and make the necessary changes that the sector wants and needs.
	The courts and tribunals Bill will be published as a draft Bill in the coming Session to bring improvements to enforcement and to help responsible creditors who are owed money to have recompense, while at the same time protecting debtors from oppressive pursuit of their debts. By unifying tribunals in a single body and creating a senior president post, we will be giving clear leadership and a single voice to tribunals, and the Bill contains measures aimed at improving the service that tribunals provide to the public.
	Our drugs Bill will build on the work that we have done across government to increase the number of drug misusers entering treatment—54 per cent more last year than in 1998-99, according to the National Treatment Agency. We have invested unprecedented resources to tackle the harm that illegal drug use, particularly that of class A drugs, has on individuals, families and communities. The Bill will provide further powers for the police to take tough action against drug dealers and powers to get more of those who commit crime to feed their drug addiction into treatment and away from a life of crime.
	Our reforms to the criminal justice system are already changing the way in which we deal with offenders and providing them with more opportunities to turn around their lives. Last year, for example, nearly 50,000 basic skills awards were made to prisoners and 8,500 offenders were placed on drug treatment and testing orders in the community.
	Our management of offenders Bill will contribute to the reduction of reoffending by underpinning development of the new national offender management service, known as NOMS. Improvements to sentencing made in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will be extended by further non-custodial options for the courts in the form of a day fines scheme, and powers to make greater use of modern technology to supervise offenders.
	Reform of the constitution is vital if we are to have judicial and democratic institutions that meet the needs of our age. We have been heartened by the large measure of agreement between us, the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on important areas of constitutional reform.
	The concordat that has been agreed on how measures in the Constitutional Reform Bill will operate in practice is without precedent. We will be continuing with that Bill, which will clarify the relationship between the executive and the judiciary, create a Supreme Court as a beacon of excellence and independence, and provide a modern and transparent means of appointing judges. I echo what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham, Lord Styen, Lord Saville and Lord Walker, said in evidence to the Select Committee earlier this year: that the separation of the judiciary at all levels from the legislature and the executive should be a cardinal feature of any modern, democratic state governed by the rule of law.
	Further improvements to our justice system will be made through three Bills. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which was introduced in the Commons last week, builds on progress in reforming the criminal justice system. Police officer numbers are now at record levels and crime has fallen by 30 per cent since 1997, but we recognise that there is still work to be done, especially in fighting organised crime. The SOCAP Bill will establish the serious organised crime agency and through an overhaul of police powers will radically improve the ability of the police, community support officers and their support staff to work together to fight crime and anti-social behaviour.
	The criminal defence service Bill, which was published as a draft Bill in the third Session, will be introduced shortly as a formal Bill. It will transfer responsibility for granting legal representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission, created under our Access to Justice Act 1999, and will reintroduce a test of financial eligibility for legal aid, ensuring that funds are targeted on the most worthy and important cases.
	The nation's youth are our future and it is vital that we take the best steps possible to deal with those who have started offending. The draft youth justice Bill builds on the reforms that we have made to the youth justice system, such as the setting up of the Youth Justice Board and the introduction of more effective community-based sentences for young offenders. The Bill follows full consultation through our policy paper Youth Justice - the Next Steps. It will clarify the main purpose of juvenile sentencing as the prevention of offending and provide a more effective, simplified structure of sentences, with strong alternatives to a custodial sentence.
	Our focus is on the law-abiding citizen. We have done a great deal to prevent our freedoms being exploited by terrorists and organised criminals and our citizens becoming the victims of crime. Further to our recent consultation on counter-terrorism provisions, we intend to set out our response and proposals for the way forward on those next year.
	Our Identity Cards Bill, which is being introduced to the Commons today, will protect our citizens from identity fraud, deter fraudulent entry to the country and illegal working, and help in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Identity fraud costs the economy £1.3 billion a year. In London, as many as one in five people has been the victim of identity fraud.
	Public support for ID cards remains high at about 80 per cent. We have consulted widely on the principle, starting in 2002 and again on the draft legislation published in April 2004. Safeguards for the protection of privacy and against the misuse of information have been built in. For example, any provision of data without consent, other than in the limited circumstances set out in the Bill, would have to be subject to parliamentary approval. Our liberties will be strengthened if we are able to protect our own identity and use identity cards to access the public services to which we are entitled.
	I want to mention some key protections for the individual that our proposals for this Session will introduce. We will publish a draft Bill on corporate manslaughter. The Government take the issue of corporate killing very seriously and are committed to reforming the law. This is an area of law that involves complex questions, and we have been careful in considering the options. We propose in December to come forward with a draft Bill that will offer a more effective sanction for holding companies and other organisations to account where they have paid little or no proper regard to the safety of their workers or the public.
	Our Inquiries Bill, published last week, will modernise the framework for conducting statutory inquiries, set up by Ministers, into events that cause public concern. That is long overdue reform. It will bring the clarity of a single statutory framework, making it suitable for any future inquiry. The Bill will clarify the respective roles of the Minister commissioning the inquiry and the chair of the inquiry. It will help inquiries to deliver their conclusions and recommendations in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.
	Finally, but not least, the Mental Capacity Bill is a vital measure for some of those in society who may not be able to make decisions for themselves, and for their carers. This carry-over Bill will be reintroduced so that we can protect, empower and support people who lack mental capacity. I wish to make it explicit to the House that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the wider debate about euthanasia, as some have tried to suggest. It is about giving vulnerable people who cannot make their own decisions the benefits and protection that new legislation can bring. They have waited long enough.
	The legislative proposals that I have outlined today are vital if we are to achieve our goal of a safer and more secure nation. They build on past progress and lay the framework for further reform and modernisation. There are other reforming Bills in the gracious Speech, such as the draft Civil Service Bill and the Transport (Wales) Bill, which will give the Assembly the powers that it needs to take forward integrated transport.
	I hope that the House will join with us over the coming Session to enact these measures and build the trust and confidence of individuals, communities and society in a better future. I am confident that we will have much work to do, and I hope that my 13 minutes will be an example for brevity.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as ever, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for presenting the Government's position so clearly, even though the past seven years look a rather murky past. I look forward to the two maiden speeches, in particular that of my geographical neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, although of course he may continue to be a political opponent in this House.
	Voters could be forgiven for thinking that this was less the Queen's Speech and more the Home Secretary's speech. Last week he said that it sets the stage for the next general election. He has launched at us a veritable blizzard of Home Office Bills—nine, including three draft Bills. It feels that, yet again, we are stuck in groundhog day—the ever-repeating day that one cannot escape—facing the same torrent of Home Office and DCA Bills. Session after Session, there is the same unwillingness to think through changes before forcing them through another place by guillotine and timetabling Motions. The Government then find that they need to make radical changes to the Bill when it ends up here. So what hope is there for the raft of significant Bills that will start in another place and end up here too late for us to give them proper scrutiny, if the Government do what they told the Sun they will do; that is to say, call the election for 5 May?
	Today I shall try to follow the noble Baroness's one good example—keeping to 13 minutes—and bounce through this huge panapoly of Bills in that time. I will refer to some of the Home Office Bills; I would certainly go well beyond 13, 15 or 30 minutes if I tried to deal with all of them. My noble friend Lord Kingsland will comment on the DCA Bills in his speech. I note that the noble Baroness referred to the Mental Capacity Bill, which the Government are treating as a DCA Bill. I give notice that, on these Benches, we will be led on that by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He will therefore speak to it when he opens the debate on the Address tomorrow.
	The noble Baroness hopes that we will welcome the Bills. I am wary of welcoming Home Office Bills, even when they look tempting, because it is a case of once bitten twice shy—at least I have mosquito bites all over me. I had a habit of trying to welcome Bills that appear to do what we think we want, only to find when they go through this House that they are like a dumping ground for the Government to add in other unwelcome proposals. That happened with the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act this year.
	So far, we have seen the text of only one of the blizzard of Bills: the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Tentatively, waiting to be bitten back, I offer it a wary welcome. It would be difficult not to welcome it, because it was our idea first—in playground language, we got there first. We welcome the Government's adoption of the idea. We have some concerns about the Government's composition of the agency, but, overall, it should be a valuable weapon in the fight against serious crime in the modern world.
	The Bill does much more than create the agency, although that would be enough; it is a full crime and policing Bill. It will overhaul police powers, extend the powers of community support officers, introduce an offence of trespassing on designated sites, and clamp down on the activities of animal rights activists—which I would certainly welcome. At the weekend, when I looked at the Bill's provisions on trespass and animal rights activists, I wondered whether some of the new powers could also be used by the Government to prevent opponents of the Hunting Act demonstrating outside Ministers' houses or government buildings during the general election. It will be intersting to see how that develops.
	Demands placed on police officers have grown considerably in recent years. One of our greatest concerns has been the use of community support officers, a concern shared by the Police Federation. The Govermment appear to use them as cheaper alternatives to provide more visible policing. Often they have only three weeks' training. So what do we see in the elegantly named SOCAP Bill? A considerable extension of the powers and role of CSOs. Jan Berry, the leader of the Police Federation, said last week:
	"This dramatically changes the role of CSOs. By giving them more powers we are effectively taking them away from the communities they are there to serve. It also begs the question 'What is the difference between a CSO and a police officer?'"
	So, while we will support elements of the Bill, we shall need to subject it to thorough and constructive scrutiny.
	Identity cards are a subject that I know will arouse strong feelings from noble Lords on all sides of the House. Before 9/11, I for one would not have countenanced them; after 9/11, I must accept that we should at least consider them. But nobody should claim that they are a panacea for all ills. They did not stop the terrorist attack in Madrid; they are far from foolproof; nor are they a substitute for the practical and sensible actions that the Government should be taking now to reduce the terrorist threat. If ID cards are introduced at all, they would not take effect for many years yet.
	We have set out five tests that the legislation must meet before we can offer our unqualified support. First, the legislation must clearly define the remit of the cards, which should be very closely drawn. Secondly, the Government must prove that they would be effective. We are all aware that the technology required to make the system work is highly complicated and still in development. Thirdly, can we really trust this Government to make them work? We have already seen the spectacular failures of the Criminal Records Bureau, the Child Support Agency and, last week, the computer systems at the Department for Work and Pensions. Fourthly, is the estimated £3.5 billion cost of ID cards really the most effective way to tackle these problems? That was only the first level of cost. We know that, so far as concerns biometrics, the cost will be far greater. Last—and, by no means, least—there are concerns about the threat to our civil liberties, although that matter has not, as yet, seemed to be of much interest to the present Home Secretary.
	Whether one supports or opposes the introduction of ID cards, it will mark an historic shift for peacetime in the relationship between the British citizen and the state. It must not be undertaken lightly, and the Bill must be given careful scrutiny.
	As the noble Baroness said, the Bill will be published today, after the conclusion of Statements in another place at about 5 o'clock or 5.30. We will not have sight of it, so I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, could, in responding to the debate, explain why the Government released a copy in advance of publication to the Times, to the journalist Mr Peter Riddell, who wrote about it with such detailed knowledge in today's newspaper, even down to the contents of Clause 15.
	The Government have given notice that two Bills will start in this House after Christmas. The first is the management of offenders Bill. We have already made our position on it clear. Merging probation and prison services will be a mammoth task. Handled well, it could be a great move forward for the justice system, but, so far, the Government have handled it badly and have created insecurity and uncertainty. When the Government publish their proposals, I shall listen carefully to the views of the Prison Service and the probation service.
	What else will be in the Bill? The noble Baroness told us today that we could look forward to some more of the forms of disposal that were started in the Criminal Justice Act 2003; namely, non-custodial sentences. I wonder whether the Government are wise to press ahead so soon on further early release, given the leaked report in the Mirror today, which shows that, on the Government's own figures, the system is failing. A significant number of people are reoffending and committing serious offences.
	The second Bill to start here will be the charities Bill. Like the noble Baroness, I recognise that the voluntary sector is looking forward to reform of the law. There is a clear need for it. The current system is complex, outdated and confusing—to me, let alone those who have not had to deal with it yet. If the Bill simply seeks to strengthen the charitable sector, the Government will have our support. If, however, the Government use the Bill to attack the providers of private education, the Bill will become controversial. In any event, it will need thorough scrutiny. That is my mantra.
	There are one or two disappointments. The first relates to the draft anti-terrorism Bill. We are concerned that the Home Secretary has forced other business into the parliamentary timetable, yet found no time for that important measure. The Government warn us of the continued threat from terrorism. There are many practical measures that the Government could take now, for example by legislating to allow evidence gained from intercepts to be used in court. That was recommended by the Newton review nine months ago, but still there has been no action.
	I welcome the contribution made to the debate by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Sunday Times yesterday. He said:
	"We do not want to fight terrorism by destroying precisely those things terrorism is trying to take from us. Open liberal democracies fail if they try to protect themselves by becoming illiberal, closed and oppressive".
	His conclusion was that dangerous times needed jury trials. How right he is.
	I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree is in his place. I look forward to his contribution, when, I am sure, he will speak as ever on such matters in a non-partisan way, as chairman of the committee.
	The vast package of home affairs and legal affairs legislation has been presented by the noble Baroness as building on the Government's past successes. It is a recognition of the Government's failures in their stewardship of the criminal justice system over the past seven years. The Government have changed the methods by which crime is measured—I do not object to that—but we know that recorded violent crime is up by 83 per cent since 1998. It hit the 1 million mark for the first time last year. In addition, the number of firearms offences has risen every year since 1997. In fact, gun crime has doubled. In 1997, there were 12,410 crimes recorded involving a firearm; in 2002-03, that figure had risen to 24,070. Those are the Home Office's figures.
	We can bandy figures until the end of the day. The one objective that we should all have, beyond anything to do with statistics, is ensuring that our communities are secure. If the Home Office is serious about its legislative programme, it will make sure that there is time for proper and constructive scrutiny by this House. All the signs are that that may not happen. I give this undertaking: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will, as always, work constructively and patiently to achieve the right result for our country.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from this part of your Lordships' House. I thank the Minister for her introductory speech. I shall concentrate on home affairs, and I must say straightaway that it is refreshing to be back on the Front Bench. It seems that not much has changed in the short time that I have been away on other duties.
	The long list of Home Office-related Bills and draft Bills set out in the Queen's Speech includes some welcome and genuinely useful measures to reduce crime and reoffending, alongside other measures that reveal the Government's blind spot with regard to the importance of maintaining civil liberties. It is unfortunate that the Government have chosen to waste parliamentary time by introducing a long series of measures, most of which have little chance of making the statute book, if there is to be a May general election. It would have been preferable to concentrate the available parliamentary time on a smaller number of useful measures that could gain all-party support.
	The political debates of the past few weeks are a good indication that the Government still have an insatiable appetite for prescribing instant solutions to crime and problems in dealing with offenders. There is serious concern among our judiciary that previous legislation passed by the Government has not had a chance to bed down. There is still inadequate research about the impact of legislation previously enacted. The question that we must pose is why, if the Government's strategy is working, we now have the highest recorded prison population for men, women and children.
	We have now the eighth annual programme of legislation. On every previous occasion, we were told that the relevant measures would be effective in tackling crime and criminality. Yet, we get more and more of the same every year. That may make the voters feel that the Home Office is tackling public concerns. However, it is obvious that many of the previous legislative measures have simply not worked. I am afraid that we may be looking for easy solutions to complex social problems.
	Crime and criminality have a lot to do with social exclusion, which is often reflected by factors such as unemployment, discrimination, poor skills, poor education, poor housing, high crime, family breakdown and poor mental and physical health. Those of us who have sat in the magistrates' courts have identified those factors in the reports that we have received.
	We have to accept that these are challenging times for our criminal justice system. The Government's commitment to make law and order a primary plank in their political platform for this Session of Parliament is bound to raise the profile of our criminal justice system still further. If we are to meet the challenges, we need to think innovatively about the means to secure the highest standards of efficiency, coherence and accountability, while protecting the essential values of fairness, discretion and independence.
	It is even more important to ensure that, by enacting legislation, we are not sacrificing the rights and liberties of our citizens. Is it not a shame that our country, renowned for its judiciary and its laws, is being criticised by the United Nations for the way in which detainees in Belmarsh are being dealt with?
	Our judicial system is the envy of the world. It is at the heart of our democracy. It is followed by many emerging and developing countries. What messages are we giving to them? Plans to put terrorist suspects on trial without a jury abandon the fundamental principles of the justice system. Moreover, it undermines public confidence in it. Those are not my words, but the words of the Government's chief prosecutor.
	My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and I visited the Human Rights Commission in India last week. That country has known what terrorism is all about. Yet, its chairman was adamant that rights and liberties would not be sacrificed in dealing with terrorism and the threat of terrorism.
	Some government measures reflect posturing rather than policy; for example, the completely otiose plan to make it an aggravating factor in sentencing for drug dealers to use children as couriers or to sell drugs outside schools. I do not know any court that would fail to regard those things as aggravating factors. Legislating to do something that invariably happens already may make good election-related headlines, but it is difficult to regard it as serious policy making.
	There are other measures for which no adequate explanation is available. We are told that identity cards are essential in tackling terrorism and illegal immigration. That is how the debate started. But in July 2000 David Blunkett said that,
	"it is important that we do not pretend that an [ID] card would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/02; col. 231.]
	He continued:
	"I have not made such claims, including ruling out their substantial contribution to countering terrorism".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/02; col. 236.]
	Then there is an about turn by David Blunkett. In summer 2004, he said that an ID card would make a significant contribution to tackling terrorism.
	It will do nothing of the sort. We are opposed to compulsory identity cards. The scheme is likely to become yet another expensive government ID failure because it relies on untested new technology. It is unlikely to achieve its stated objectives of tackling illegal immigration, terrorism and fraud.
	There is a serious risk that it will lead to further discrimination against ethnic minorities who are already being disproportionately targeted under terrorism and illegal immigration operations. The impact of stop-and-search procedures on our Muslim community has been disproportionate. The cost is likely to be in excess of £3 billion, yet there has been no proper analysis of its cost-effectiveness.
	Did the public know about the costing and its effectiveness when questions were put asking for their support? The savings made from not proceeding with the scheme would be better spent on more police on our streets. We have been warned by the chief police officers that they are facing a £350 million shortfall for fighting crime next year.
	However, all in the Queen's Speech is not bad. First, I shall refer to a number of worthwhile measures which deserve, and will receive, our support. Legislation to outlaw incitement to religious hatred is welcome. There is no logic in a position where inciting hatred against a minority group because they are black or Asian is an offence, but inciting hatred against them because they are Muslims is not. Although the offence will protect members of all religious faiths, it is particularly important at a time of increasing Islamophobia.
	There are serious issues to be discussed and addressed. I shall be delighted to offer the help of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill to take that matter further. A measure likely to be promoted by the DTI about a draft corporate manslaughter Bill will obviously be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Goodhart.
	I welcome the proposed youth justice Bill, which will contain greater restrictions on the use of custody and measures to increase the credibility of community sentences for young offenders. The proposal to restrict detention and training orders to young people who have previously received an intensive supervision and surveillance programme is particularly welcome.
	I must declare an interest as president of NACRO, which runs some excellent intensive supervision and surveillance programmes. These programmes are keeping some prolific young offenders—for whom other community sentences and short custodial sentences have failed—away from further crime through intensive education and mentoring, combined with restrictions enforced by electronic monitoring. It cannot be right to send a young person into custody before a programme such as that has been tried.
	There must also be a clear recognition that faced with the highest ever prison population we must have the courage to explore tough but effective community alternatives. It is right that the intensive community sentences that have been shown to work with under-18s should be extended to older age groups. Strict supervision in the community is not a soft option for many offenders. A well executed rehabilitation programme involving mentors and specially designed courses can put order back in a young life and help to reduce crime in the community.
	We also strongly support much of the Government's drug strategy that will form the content of the drugs Bill. In particular, we strongly support measures to increase the number of drug-addicted offenders who receive drug rehabilitation and treatment programmes. According to recent research by South Bank University, those programmes reduce the number of crimes committed by offenders who enter treatment by around 70 per cent. That is a phenomenal reduction in the number of burglaries, thefts, street robberies and offences of selling drugs carried out by such offenders to feed their habits.
	We remain unconvinced of the need to move to a single correctional service at this stage. There are strong arguments for better co-ordination between the Prison Service and the probation service, especially in the light of the new custody plus sentences due to start in 2006, which comprise of a period of custody followed by a longer period under supervision in the community. However, the plans for NOMS are vague, poorly thought out and threaten to put more pressure on the probation service, which is already in a state of crisis.
	We have set out our "payback not layback" proposals which aim to keep non-violent offenders out of prison wherever possible, giving them tough community sentences instead. Properly implemented, community sentences can seriously challenge offending behaviour, making offenders repay their victims and meet the needs of the community that they have harmed. That is a visibly tougher sentencing option than prison.
	However, the new service stands a realistic chance of achieving its aims only if it is properly resourced, introduced in a way that engages the support of members of both services and makes maximum use of partnerships with voluntary agencies.
	So far I have referred to measures that have some merit, at least in principle. Unfortunately, too many measures in the Queen's Speech do not have merit because they disproportionately affect and attack civil liberties. The extension of powers of arrest to all suspected offences, however minor, is a breathtakingly disproportionate approach that fails to maintain any reasonable balance between the rights of citizens and the powers of the police. The Government assure us that in practice those powers will not be misused.
	But all our experience shows that powers of a very wide discretionary nature can sometimes be abused by over-zealous law enforcers. It shows us too that they are often used disproportionately against people from minority ethnic groups.
	The Government are also proposing a power to test people compulsorily for drugs on arrest rather than charge. It surely cannot be right to subject people to such an intrusive and invasive procedure before the police have concluded that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to charge them with an offence. I am frankly astonished that the Government cannot see how draconian and unbalanced those approaches seem to many people who strongly support any reasonable measure to tackle crime and deal with offenders more effectively.
	In conclusion, there is a danger than an approach based simply on "being tough" is counter productive. We must remember that it is not so much what the law or declaration specifically says as the general underlying attitudes and values it is held to express that are of importance for social well being. Of course, the interests of the law-abiding community have to be protected. But civil rights and civil liberties are an essential element of our judicial system. They sustain our democratic values. We dilute these at our peril.

Ukraine and the Middle East

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement on Ukraine and the Middle East. Let me deal first with Ukraine. The international Election Observer Mission, led by the OSCE, has concluded that the presidential elections held in Ukraine on 21 November were flawed. On this basis we cannot accept that the process was either free or fair. The Ukrainian Parliament voted on Saturday, by a two-thirds majority, for the elections to be re-run. The Ukrainian Supreme Court has suspended official publication of the results and will today begin its hearing of opposition challenges to them.
	"Meanwhile, the situation in the country remains fragile with large-scale protests, strikes, blockades of government buildings and civil disobedience. We urge all parties, including the authorities, to continue to show restraint. Our ambassador in Kiev is seeing the Ukrainian Interior Minister this afternoon with a message to that effect.
	"We are giving active backing to the efforts of the Presidency of the European Union, High Representative Javier Solana, and the presidents of Poland and Lithuania to resolve the situation. I spoke again to Mr Solana this morning.
	"Let me make this clear. In any democratic election, the decision itself is one for the voters concerned, and them alone. But the international community has a clear right and responsibility, under obligations accepted by the Government of Ukraine, to ensure that the process is a fair one and that the outcome reflects the will of the people.
	"I turn now to Iran. Over the past two years, my French and German counterparts and I, working with the International Atomic Energy Agency, have led efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Breaches of these obligations, including significant failures to disclose details of its activities, have led to widespread anxiety in the international community about Iran's real intentions. Iran does have the right to pursue a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes, but it is legally barred from pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.
	"We three Foreign Ministers, the so-called E3, visited Tehran on 21 October last year. On 5 and 6 November this year, officials from the E3, the EU and Iran reached an agreement in Paris under which Iran would suspend all its activities related to the most sensitive nuclear technologies; that is, the enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel. It is these technologies that allow for the production of weapons-grade material. The suspension would mean that negotiations can begin on long-term arrangements for Iran's civil nuclear programme. The Paris agreement requires that those arrangements should include objective guarantees that Iran's purposes are exclusively peaceful. I have placed a copy of the agreement in the Library.
	"In parallel, under the agreement negotiations would begin on areas where Europe and Iran could co-operate, including on technology and commercial co-operation, and on political and security issues of mutual interest. The European Union and Iran would also resume negotiations on a trade and co-operation agreement which had been held up because of European concerns about the nuclear issue.
	"I spoke to my Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharazzi, last Tuesday, and to Iran's chief negotiator, Dr Hassan Rouhani, by telephone last Friday. I stressed to both of them the importance of implementing quickly the Paris agreement in full. Following further talks in Vienna yesterday, Iran has now written to the IAEA promising that 20 sets of centrifuge components, which Iran had sought to exclude from the suspension, would now be included. The head of the agency, Dr Mohamed El Baradei, is therefore able to state to the board today that suspension is being fully implemented. We tabled a resolution to the IAEA last night which is now under discussion with the board and I have just learnt that the resolution has been agreed by consensus in Vienna.
	"Let me now turn to the conference on Iraq which I attended last Monday and Tuesday in the Egyptian city of Sharm-el-Sheikh. The conference brought together representatives from the interim Iraqi Government and from Iraq's neighbours, the G8, China and others including the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. I pay tribute to my colleague the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, for his skilful and effective preparation and chairmanship of the meeting. I am placing a copy of the final communiqué in the Library.
	"As the House will be aware, in the last two and a half years I have participated in many international discussions on Iraq, in the United Nations and elsewhere. Many of these debates have been acrimonious and difficult. The Sharm-el-Sheikh conference, in contrast, marked a real break with that. There was a determination by all concerned to put the past behind us. For example, not a single delegate proposed delaying the elections in Iraq due on 30 January. The conference sent a clear and unanimous signal of support for the political process in Iraq, based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, and specifically for those elections.
	"In my own intervention at the conference I explained that we will be working for successful elections in Iraq through efficient election administration, on which the Iraqis and the UN are doing exceptional work in difficult circumstances; promoting full participation by all parts of Iraqi society, regardless of ethnic or sectarian background; and working for the best possible security.
	"At the conference Iraq's neighbours also agreed to intensify their co-operation to control their borders with Iraq so as to stop infiltration by terrorists and insurgents. Interior Ministers will be meeting in Tehran tomorrow to pursue this.
	"Directly after the Iraq conference, last Wednesday and Thursday I visited Israel and the Occupied Territories. In Israel I had several hours of highly constructive talks with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and with Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; Leader of the Opposition Shimon Peres; and a wide range of Israeli parliamentarians.
	"In Ramallah, in the Occupied Territories, I laid a wreath on the grave of the late president Yasser Arafat. I saw Prime Minister Abu Ala; chairman of the PLO Abu Mazen; and Ministers Nabil Sha'ath, Salam Fayyad and Sa'eb Erekat.
	"The last few years have been profoundly tragic and depressing for Israelis and Palestinians alike, with many deaths and injuries on both sides, and a climate of fear and suspicion. For those in the region most dawns in the recent past have proved to be false. But I have to tell the House that the change of atmosphere for the better on both sides is now palpable.
	"Several factors have contributed to this: Prime Minister Sharon's courageous plan for disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank; the opportunity for fresh elections within the Palestinian Authority; and President Bush's explicit commitment during the visit to Washington of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to use America's political capital to give new impetus to the road map. Everywhere I went, there was a real appreciation for the Prime Minister's and all the United Kingdom's efforts to assist the peace process, as well as for our wider work in the region.
	"The immediate priority is the Palestinian Authority presidential elections on 9 January. The United Kingdom, both bilaterally and through the European Union, will provide material support for those elections and will participate in an EU observation mission.
	"Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom told me that for those elections, Israel would ensure freedom of movement and remove any other obstacles as far as security permitted, and allow residents of East Jerusalem to vote. He confirmed that the Israeli Government would want to operate according to broadly the same arrangements as were agreed for the 1996 Palestinian elections, and said that Israel would accept international monitoring for the elections. I also discussed these issues with members of the Palestinian Election Commission in Ramallah.
	"The Palestinian Ministers I met during my visit readily acknowledged the need to rise to the challenges presented by Israeli disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank, and to exploit the opportunity for progress which we now have. They were conscious of the need for thoroughgoing reforms of Palestinian institutions as a crucial step in building the conditions for a viable democratic Palestinian state.
	"I was encouraged by the strong commitment on the part of the new Palestinian leadership to improving security arrangements in the Occupied Territories. They described this to me as a commitment to make a '100 per cent' effort on security, and they recognised that such an effort is vital for dealing with the rejectionists and terrorists who may seek to derail progress in future peace negotiations, and for maintaining order and security in the Palestinian territories themselves, particularly in the run-up to the elections.
	"I made clear our continuing strong support for Palestinian security reform. I visited the central operations room in Ramallah which the United Kingdom has financed and was able to observe the security effort which the Palestinians were putting in place.
	"We in the international community, as friends of the Israelis and Palestinians, now need to do all we can to help them seize the opportunity for progress and to restart the peace process laid out in the road map and in UNSCR 13/97, leading to a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine.
	"And I think that the whole House would agree that ending the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians would be a huge contribution to stability and peace, not just in the region but world-wide. It is for that reason that this is of the highest priority for the British Government".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement today. I know that she has a very tough schedule and fitting in Statements here with the demands of her day job as Minister for the Middle East must be difficult at all times. But these are fast-moving issues and it is right that your Lordships should be kept as up to date as possible with them. I have a number of questions—I hope not too many—and I shall take the subjects in the order in which they appear in the Statement.
	First, on the Ukraine, does the Minister agree that it is not in our interests to see the Ukraine split in the way threatened, with talk of autonomy for the eastern provinces? Does she further agree that it is not in our interests for the situation to be seen as a kind of EU versus Russia line up? Can she assure the House that nothing is being done by the European Union High Representative in Kiev, Mr Solana, and his colleagues to depict the issue as one of Europe versus Russia and that everything is being done to assure both the Ukraine and the Russian Federation that they have a longer-term welcome within the European system as prosperous democracies on a partnership basis with the European Union—or, in the case of Ukraine, on a membership basis.
	Can the Minister say what proportion of western Europe's natural gas is piped through the Ukraine? Obviously when political instability is threatened, it is very worrying. It could be the makings of another energy shock, which would be very unwelcome.
	Secondly, as to Iran, am I to understand that the voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment is now fully agreed? Has any kind of time limit been placed upon it? Have the centrifuge sets been sealed off or merely left open for inspection by the IAEA? Can the Minister be more explicit than the Statement as to what guarantees the British Government have given by way of assistance with civil nuclear programmes and other trade and commercial offerings? What guarantees have the French given? What guarantees have been given by the EU as a whole? It is important that we should know. Have the American Government expressed any view on this or do they, as has been suggested, remain a little wary of the deal? Can the Minister comment on that issue?
	While we are discussing Iran, please could we have back the boats that the Iranians stole in the Shatt al Arab and have not returned to us? They were brand new and expensive equipment.
	Turning, thirdly, to Iraq and the talks at Sharm-el- Sheikh, what are the Arab nations in the Mahgreb and the Gulf going to do to support Iraq's move back to normality and peace? Will they produce more money? There is a great deal of money around in the Gulf at the moment because of the high oil price. Was there any reference to a military or peacekeeping force of some kind? There has been mention in the press of an Islamic stabilisation force; was that issue raised at Sharm-el-Sheikh?
	Was it suggested that other countries with strong Muslim interests—internally, or with Muslim neighbours next door—should be approached and brought into the operation? The countries suggested are India, the Russian Federation with its huge Muslim minority, Turkey with its Muslim majority, Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia. All these countries have been mentioned as potential helpers. Is it not time to begin mobilising them as well? Was that suggestion raised at Sharm-el-Sheikh?
	Can the Minister assure the House that we are 100 per cent in support of 30 January as the election date in Iraq? What do the Government make of the disturbing report of the local commanding officer in Mosul that the police force there has collapsed having been violently attacked by the insurgents? He does not believe that it will be possible to conduct an election at all. Obviously policing will be essential for free elections on 30 January.
	The story is still running that more British troops—together with more American troops, more Japanese troops and others—are about to be sent to Iraq. Is that correct? We recognise that more troops of one kind or another will be needed in the run up to the elections, but can we have the facts?
	As to Israel and Palestine, a matter of central concern to us all, did or did not Mr Solana meet the Hamas people—I could not quite make out the statements from his office—and, if so, when did he meet them? Was it recently?
	Proposals for elections have followed the death of Arafat. Are they to be solely presidential elections or is it proposed to hold also parliamentary and local elections? If such elections are not to be held along with the presidential elections on 9 January, when will they be held?
	Has any more detailed work been carried out on the road map? We all want the road map to have a new impetus but there are some real dilemmas—for instance, reconciling the huge and permanent-looking Israeli settlements right across the West Bank area with the hope for a viable Palestinian state. Is it not important to get these issues absolutely clear before we plunge forward and raise people's hopes by having conferences and so on? We should approach this matter with great attention to detail, in which the devil nearly always lies, before we take up bold public postures.
	Do the Government have a view on the successor to Mr Arafat? Is it right that Mr Mahmoud Abbas will be the only candidate, or is Mr Barghouti going to put in his candidacy from an Israeli gaol? Obviously the elections will be decided by the Palestinians but how do the Government view the situation? Those are the questions I wish to put to the noble Baroness.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. I hesitate to add to the large number of questions which have already been posed. We recognise the immense effort that the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in this House, have been putting into the complex issues of the Middle East. We welcome the constructive progress that they are now able to report on a number of fronts.
	We particularly welcome the progress on Iran. While recognising it is not the end of the story by a long way, the concerted action of the Foreign Secretaries of the three largest states in the European Union, with the support of the EU as a whole, has led to real progress. Where do we go from here? How much continuous monitoring of the agreement offered by the Iranians is seen as a part of the way forward? I support the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in seeking greater detail of what the American response is likely to be. The noises out of Washington so far have not been encouraging and its level of support for the EU initiative has been low. What further opportunities may now open up for widening political dialogue and for encouraging an opening of society and democracy in Iran, given the evident tensions between the current clerical regime and many of its own people?
	On Ukraine, so far we have relatively happy news to report. How do the Government see this being handled from now on? Is the OSCE the best framework through which to operate and, if so, how can we strengthen its role? Again, one welcomes the role of a number of EU member governments, particularly the Poles and Lithuanians, in providing mediating roles within this quite complex situation. Some of us have been distressed—indeed, appalled—by the way in which heads of government of the largest EU states—Britain, France, Germany and Italy—have appeared, during the past 18 months, to be competing to have a special relationship with President Putin. Given the delicacy of the relationship with Russia over Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the southern Caucasus, this seems another area in which it is evident that there is the strongest possible argument for a common EU approach.
	On Iraq, we all welcome progress towards elections. Can the Minister reassure us that it is intended that the elections will take place throughout Iraq? Can she tell us a little more about how post-election arrangements are envisaged and whether it is assumed that British troops will have to stay for a considerable period after the election?
	Finally, on Israel, the Statement is encouraging but a little one-sided. It talks about the rejectionists on the Palestinian side but not about the problem of rejectionists on the Israeli side. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the problem of the settlements in the West Bank. All of us who believe firmly that the long-term security of Israel requires a stable and acceptable Palestinian state recognise that the settlements and the barrier have also to be dealt with, which means we have to stick to the road map and not allow it to be withdrawn. The Statement's last paragraph refers to,
	"a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine".
	How far has the Foreign Secretary been able to persuade Israeli interlocutors that this also requires Israeli concessions?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their kind remarks. The part of the Statement that deals with Iran, Iraq and Palestine/Israel represents work in progress. A great deal more needs to be done, as I hope the Statement implied. Indeed, I shall be leaving your Lordships' House to go directly to a meeting in The Hague on these very matters.
	Let me turn first to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about Ukraine. He asked me to make a clear statement that the break-up of Ukraine was not in our interests. We do not believe that the Ukrainians really want their country to break up. We do not believe that that is the desire of countries around Ukraine. It is clear that within Ukraine there is substantial support for both the presidential candidates, and that makes dialogue between both sides of the country, if I can put it that way, very important. We hope that whoever does become president will be able to govern Ukraine as a whole nation in the coming months and years.
	I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, implied. This should not be seen as a polarisation of the European Union versus Russia. We need to have dialogue; as I indicated to your Lordships, the Ukrainian High Courts are looking at this issue only this afternoon. It is wise for them to look at the various challenges that have been made to the electoral process in Ukraine. This is essentially a matter for Ukraine's courts although, as the Statement clearly indicated, neighbours have an interest, given that Ukraine has signed up to free and fair elections.
	On the question of natural gas, some of our gas comes through Ukraine, although I do not know the exact percentage. Rather than make a wild guess, I have in my mind somewhere between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. However, I think it would be sensible for me to write to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and put a copy of my letter in the Library.
	We are one of the largest investors into Ukraine; the United Kingdom has substantial commercial interests in that country. While we are good neighbours, we should also keep an eye on those commercial interests. That is certainly reasonable.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we should have a common EU approach. That is why Mr Solana and the representatives from Poland and Lithuania have been in Ukraine. They are not there at the moment, although I understand that Mr Solana may return in a few days' time if he believes that that would be helpful.
	It is a little difficult to answer fully some of the questions about Iran. As the Statement indicated, just before my right honourable friend went into his Chamber and I came into your Lordships' Chamber, we learned that agreement had been reached by consensus at the IAEA governing body this afternoon. So I am not in a position to give your Lordships a full breakdown of every point that was covered. However, the centrifuge sets, which were referred to in the Statement, will be a matter for inspection. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether they will be permanently sealed—I recognise that that is an important point—but they will certainly be part of the inspection process, as of yesterday afternoon, because they had been excluded by the Iranians before that point.
	The noble Lord asked what guarantees the EU is able to give the Iranians. There is a timetable for the commencement of long-term discussions aimed at providing long-term objectives for Iran. Our objective is that its nuclear capability is being used for entirely peaceful purposes. Iran's objectives, however, are largely about technical and commercial co-operation and the very important point of resuming the commercial and trade discussions with the European Union which were suspended last year because of European concerns arising from the doubts over Iran's nuclear capability. Negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement will be resumed.
	Both noble Lords focused on the United States' reactions to the E3 initiative. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that it was not so much that support in the United States was low but perhaps the best word for it is "varied". The United States did support the E3 initiative, and the agreement this afternoon has been reached by consensus on the IAEA board. Consensus, to my mind, includes the United States being content with what the E3 managed to secure.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is quite right that we do not have our boats back yet. The MoD is meeting with the Iranian authorities; it met them in September, and I understand that it is still looking at the analysis of the GPS information which has been the subject of so much interest on this issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke of continuous monitoring. That is the whole crux of the agreement that we have reached through the E3 and the IAEA.
	On Iraq, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what the neighbours in the region were doing. This will be discussed in some detail in a meeting that will take place in Tehran tomorrow. The point of the meeting is to get real political support for Iraq, rather than financial support. The fact is that there is considerable financial support for Iraq—33 billion dollars was pledged at the Madrid conference. Your Lordships have commented in the past that much of that money has still not been committed or dispersed within Iraq itself. However, the political support of Iraq's neighbours for the process in Iraq is urgently needed—not only political support for the elections, but for dealing with problems with a number of the borders of countries neighbouring Iraq, which are much too porous. Too many people with questionable motives and too much equipment are being let into Iraq and we very much hope that those issues will be addressed.
	Of course, we support the election date, which has been set by the interim Iraqi Government for 30 January. That process is being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised his concerns about that. I can tell him that the matter is being discussed not only in Iraq and by the multinational forces who are able to provide some of the security, but in the United Nations. I had some detailed discussions with Sir Kieran Prendergast on this matter only 10 or so days ago.
	Questions were also asked about Mosul and the statement made this morning by a senior security official, who I believe is on the American side. As I understand it, he said that it would not be possible to hold elections today rather than that it would not be possible to hold elections at all. However, I recognise that that is a very real point. If your Lordships are content, I would like to take one more minute to answer some of the points on the Palestinian issue.
	The elections on 9 January are presidential elections. I understand that Mr Barghouti is not standing, to answer a specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I will write to your Lordships with other election dates. I believe that they have been set and I am sorry not have them at the top of my mind as I speak. However, I agree with both noble Lords about the importance of dealing with the Israeli issue of settlements—which is dealt with in phase one of the road map which states that settlements should be frozen—and the important questions raised about the wall and barrier. As to whether Mr Solana met members of Hamas, Mr Solana's office said that it wanted to clarify that at no time did Dr Solana wish to imply that direct contact between himself and Hamas had taken place. Both noble Lords can have a copy of that statement if they would find it helpful.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I echo the appreciation already expressed to the noble Baroness not only for repeating the Statement, but for the very real work in progress—as she put it—that the Statement reflects, especially as regards Iran, Iraq and Arab-Israel. I have two questions, which I shall ask in reverse order, starting with Arab-Israel.
	I hope that the Minister will repeat what I think she has said before—that the aim of the road map is first and foremost the security of Israel, but secondly and most importantly the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. The Minister referred to new impetus being put into the road map and that is very welcome, although I am not sure that that is entirely consistent with statements from Washington which suggest that a four-year programme is being considered. However, is there any prospect of the United States appointing a special envoy, which many of us believe would be an important step if we are really to have new impetus put into the peace process?
	Turning to Iran, the Statement referred to increased trade co-operation. Do the British Government still regard extra-territorial ILSA legislation from Congress as applying to British companies? If so, is that likely to be a constraint on increased trade co-operation and investment?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for his remarks. However, the aim of the road map is not first the security of Israel. It is to have two states living side by side—Israel living in peace and security with its neighbours and a contiguous viable state of Palestine. It is important to keep those aims on twin tracks and not say that one is more important than the other, because quite frankly, to do so would automatically lose us the concentration.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for ticking me off in what is a rather unusual reverse order from my more normal speeches.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would not dream of ticking off the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I cannot see myself being quite that bold. However, I wanted to get the Government's position clear.
	On the question of the four-year programme, the four years was mentioned when the President of the United States said that over the next four years— which I took to mean his presidential period—he wanted to spend the political capital of the United States on establishing a state of Israel. That is not so much thinking in terms of a four-year plan as him saying that it was also one of his priorities, in the way that the Prime Minister said that it was his priority over the next period.
	I understand that the United States of America is as yet undecided about a special envoy. The incoming Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, may well decide that she wants to take that role on her own shoulders rather than appointing an envoy so to do. However, I am sure that we will learn more about that.
	On the question of Iran and trade co-operation, as noble Lords will know, we have always regarded extra-territorial legislation with enormous distaste in this country. Governments of both political persuasions in the recent past in the UK have done so. We are now in a position to resume negotiations on a commercial co-operation agreement with the Iranians, which I understand from my period as a trade Minister is something that UK companies and the Iranians very much want to see.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, while awaiting the judgments of the Ukrainian Supreme Court on allegations of widespread electoral abuse, will my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government back the statement of the EU Presidency calling for a fresh ballot in Ukraine? Furthermore, will the Government also call upon the Russian Federation to dissociate itself from some of those in the south and east of Ukraine who are calling for some form of unilateral declaration of independence and detachment from the rest of Ukraine?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I will be a little guarded in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. The Statement makes it very clear that we do not think that the outcome of the elections can be regarded as free or fair. It is now right and proper that we wait to see what the Ukrainian courts themselves say about this matter. My noble friend is absolutely right. Not only did our colleagues in the OSCE—including my right honourable friend Mr Bruce George, who was a part of the parliamentary committee—say that the election did not meet its standards, but also the observers from NATO, who said that there was a serious level of ballot abuse in the Ukraine. The sensible thing for us to do is to wait to see what the Supreme Courts say. However, our overall view on this point is implicit in what my right honourable friend said.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I am sure that "wait and see" are wise words from the Minister. However, I have a question that she may feel disinclined to answer because of the sensitivity of the situation. If the Ukrainian courts' decisions result in there being a second election, does she expect that the OSCE will still be available to monitor that election? If so, what other arrangements does she think might be suitable to keep onside as far as possible with Russia?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much hope that, if there is to be another ballot, the OSCE would still monitor any fresh elections. But I hope, too, that we will be able to have a dialogue with our friends in Moscow about the way in which the issue is developing. It is essential that we recognise that a fragile position has emerged in Ukraine. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, many people are urging a peaceful and measured approach to the matter, and say that we should wait for what the courts decide, while acknowledging that the position is entirely unsatisfactory for the people of Ukraine. The outcome—of who becomes the next president—must reflect the will of the people of Ukraine.

Lord Garden: My Lords, with just two months to go to the elections in Iraq, did discussions take place last week or at another time about the provision of UN and other international monitors and observers for those elections, and security for those people?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all those matters are under discussion. There have been discussions within the UN; discussions have taken place about how the elections can be observed for fairness and how security can be provided. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when answering questions from the press this morning, made it clear that there are preferences for an increased number of Iraqis to provide their own security for the elections, which would provide a greater degree of confidence for Iraq that the elections were for Iraqis and administered by Iraqis. That is where we would like to see a great deal of emphasis placed; indeed, much of the effort of the international community has gone into training Iraqi forces for that purpose. I hope that it goes without saying—one always has to say these things but I believe that all your Lordships would agree—that a degree of international monitoring would be very much welcomed.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us share the warm welcome given to the progress in Iran? It is remarkable in many respects, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has said, that our Foreign Secretary, along with Mr de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, had a large part to play in brokering the foundations of the agreement. Although that sort of triangular relationship is not the only ball game in town, it is an important one for the future, and has also helped to underpin the credibility of the IAEA.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with that. Of course, the initiative was begun under the Foreign Minister, Mr de Villepin, of France. Now, of course, Mr Barnier has taken over that role. He and my right honourable friend, together with Joschka Fischer, have done an excellent job for the international community. It has not been easy; it has been a day-by-day issue for us about trying to build confidence with a country that has had difficult international relationships, as we know.
	We have maintained a good diplomatic relationship with Iran, which is, if your Lordships like, in contrast with that of United States of America, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, implied earlier. We have worked steadily at this issue, but the real test will not be in the signing of agreements or agreements made at the IAEA today. It will be in the implementation. That is what I said at the beginning of my answers to these questions; this is all very much a work in progress.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

Debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in continuing the debate on the gracious Speech, I shall mention, though only in passing, some scepticism from these Benches about the overall plans for a Supreme Court. No doubt other right reverend Prelates will express their views again on that matter in future debates.
	Today, I wish to address the proposal relating to incitement to religious hatred. That is a matter of particular concern in the Manchester diocese, where we have a large and complex ethnic mix, and where the other faith and community leaders have invited me to be their permanent convenor. In our meetings during the past two years, I have been aware of the increasing sense of insecurity felt by all faith communities, not least by the many Jews in Prestwich, where I live.
	Protection against incitement to hatred is already offered to Jews and Sikhs. The Minister will be aware that, in its evidence to the Select Committee, of which my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth was a member, the Board of Deputies of British Jews expressed doubts about the value and effectiveness of a new law, on the grounds that it was likely to be no more effective than the existing laws on racial incitement—a rather damning comment—and that it might give schismatic groups a weapon with which to attack each other. The Jewish concern, clearly, is not that the law is inadequate, but that existing laws are not enforced adequately.
	Nevertheless, the Board of Deputies recognised, as does the Church of England, that there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said—an imbalance in relation to Muslims and other faith groups, and therefore a need to support other faith communities in seeking a new law. Equality before the law is important, and all those who experience harassment and threats because of their religion, or lack of it, are entitled to protection. However, it is essential that any new offence should be framed in such a way as to permit rational discussion and criticism of religion, even in sharp terms, and the pursuit of people's religious beliefs, including the activity of proselytising, as long as this does not cause harm to others.
	What of the categories of persons against whom religious hatred can be cited? It appears from measures such as the employment equality regulations and the Draft Charities Bill that the Government's approach is not to seek to define what amounts to "religion" or "religious belief", whether by listing particular religions or by reference to a general definition. Such a broad and flexible interpretation of "religion" does not seem to me to be problematic in principle. Nor would extension of protection to those who hold no "religious belief" be problematic, though of course there would be implications for the Churches if new offences could come into play in the activity of evangelising those of no faith.
	That brings me to the nature of the conduct required: the ingredients of an offence that might lead those engaged in evangelising to be at risk of prosecution. Pertinent is the decision in Hammond v Director of Public Prosecutions this year. The administrative court upheld the conviction by magistrates of a "street preacher" under Section 5 of the Public Order Act for displaying, in a town centre, a sign bearing the words "Stop Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord." Several people gave evidence that they were insulted or distressed by the sign. The decision to uphold the conviction appears to show that the border between that which is merely, offensive and that which is "insulting" may be easier to cross than had been thought, especially when the proclamation of what at least some Christians would see as Gospel values conflicts sharply with the values of others. Whether the Hammond judgment conformed to the requirements of the Human Rights Act is a matter on which I am not qualified to venture an opinion.
	I turn now to the nature of the intention required to commit an offence. At the time of previous proposals, Christian groups expressed concerns that the provisions could penalise proper religious debate or evangelistic activity. Indeed, the Select Committee saw real difficulties in framing new offences of the kind proposed, given the rights of freedom of religion and expression protected under the Human Rights Act. I refer to chapters 6 and 7 of the select committee report.
	In the Norwood case in 2002, the divisional court upheld a conviction under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. A poster in a window, saying "Islam out of Britain" was found to be an attack on Muslims, and placing it in a window deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. In the Hammond case, to which I have earlier referred, that person's behaviour was found likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress simply by reference to the fact that the same activity had given rise to distress previously. In the light of those issues, the Government's intention to include a requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General to the bringing of any prosecution is welcome, and might indeed ensure that the new offences would be invoked only in cases when it was clearly recognised to be in the public interest.
	Provided that the various concerns I have expressed are satisfied, the view from these Benches is one of general welcome and qualified support. The Government are to be congratulated on seeking to rectify the present unequal protection offered to different religions and to deter religiously motivated incitement of harm against people of all faiths and none. I hope and believe that the Government will be sensitive to anxieties about inhibiting free speech and the need to avoid penalising robust argument whether in promotion of or criticism of religious belief and practice.
	We know that this country now has many faiths within it. We also know that religion has tragically contributed to human conflicts and division, and still does. But I am very aware from the privilege I have of convening and at times representing the leaders of different faiths in Greater Manchester that each faith, when properly followed, has within it an enormous capacity to enable this country's different communities to live and work together in pursuit of peace and justice. From these Benches, we want to support the Government in providing a constructive legislative contribution to that process.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in what is clearly going to be a wide-ranging debate, I want to focus on the impact of Home Office Bills on higher education, and I declare my interest as chief executive of Universities UK. First, however, I should like to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Prosser and Lord Gould of Brookwood. I know that we will be treated to fascinating insights from the vast experience that they bring to this House.
	Although we are spared the excitement of a higher education Bill this year, there is a great deal in the package of Home Office Bills that is of interest to our universities. Both the Charities Bill and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill will affect universities. The Home Office's policies on visas will also have a significant impact.
	Universities UK and a number of individual universities contributed to the Select Committee that examined the Draft Charities Bill. I thought that the committee drew out a number of important issues which I hope will lead to an improved piece of legislation. Members of this House and of the other place deserve our thanks for their work.
	As your Lordships will know, many universities are charities. They already, therefore, follow charity law. However, many have been exempt charities and so have not had to register with the Charity Commission. Under the Bill, I expect that the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE—will become the main charity regulator for English higher education institutions, rather than all institutions having to register with the Charity Commission. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly will be taking on the regulatory powers, and a separate charities Bill is currently before the Scottish Parliament. However, I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that, for England, this will mean the minimum bureaucracy for the sector, which is widely accepted to suffer already from over-regulation.
	There will be many questions to be answered about how the relationship between universities, HEFCE and the Charity Commission will work—for example, about HEFCE's powers to issue advice and guidance to institutions, and the operation of the Charity Commission's new appeal system. I am sure that those will be raised during the course of the legislation.
	As the development of "spin-out" companies becomes an increasingly important part of universities' work—and indeed of their income—I will also want to monitor the impact of the proposals in this area. I understand that the Government are reluctant to take up one of the earlier recommendations of the Cabinet Office to allow charities to "trade", but I would not like to see further opportunities for universities to increase their income constrained, particularly when, judging from recent press reports, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering changes to the tax rules to help university "spin-out" companies.
	Perhaps the most controversial proposals in the Draft Charities Bill were around the issue of "public benefit". The Bill will replace the presumption of public benefit for educational institutions with "the advancement of education" as a charitable purpose. Charities will also be subject to a "public benefit test". As your Lordships will be aware, the impact of these proposals on private schools generated a great deal of debate, both in the Select Committee and in the press. While no one, to my knowledge, has questioned the charitable purpose of universities, I would certainly welcome reassurance from the Minister on this point.
	I would also like to welcome the Government's proposals, in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, for the protection of scientists working in our universities. Your Lordships will be aware that in recent months the University of Cambridge has had to cancel plans to build a new centre for research on animals, and construction at Oxford's new facility was delayed.
	While I would not for a moment wish to stifle the views of those who disagree with carrying out research on animals—after all the universities are bastions of freedom of speech—harassment and intimidation of university staff by a small minority of protesters is not acceptable. Chris Patten, chancellor of both Oxford and Newcastle Universities and, I am delighted to say, soon to be a Member of this House, covered this issue in a recent speech. As he said,
	"to use violence against research at university—against academic staff and all those in any way associated with what they do—is a serious blow against the basic liberties of a plural society".
	The current law has not been sufficient to prevent harassment and intimidation. The Bill as published would prohibit intimidation of people going about their lawful business, prevent the harassment of people in their homes, and safeguard groups of employees rather than just named individuals. Please can the Minister ensure that enough parliamentary time is allocated to this Bill so that it can be carefully scrutinised by Parliament and brought into law as soon as possible for the sake of university staff.
	I would also like to use this opportunity to mention the Home Office's proposals in another area—visa charges for students. International students not only provide an important social and cultural benefit, they make a considerable economic contribution to the UK while they study here and after graduation. The British Council, the Department for Education and Skills, and UK Trade and Investment recently produced a study on the global value of education and training exports to the UK economy. It calculated a total of just under £4 billion as export earnings from UK higher education's international activities. The Prime Minister's initiative has been successful in promoting the high quality of UK higher education around the world, but I believe that the Home Office's actions could now put this success in danger.
	My main concern is around the cost of visas, in particular visa extensions. Despite assurances to the contrary, the Home Office introduced, without consultation, in 2003 charges of £155 for applications for visa extensions, or £250 for applications made in person. There is now the prospect of even higher charges.
	There should be only a small number of students needing to apply for visa extensions or "leave to remain", as it is known. There are guidelines, but in many cases it appears that entry clearance officers are either ignoring or are unaware of the guidelines, so that the period of leave granted to students is often insufficient to cover the duration of their course. Indeed, UKCOSA—the Council for International Education—recently published a survey, in conjunction with Universities UK, SCOP and the British Council, which reveals that 36 per cent of international students surveyed reported needing to apply for leave to remain at some point. I should like to quote one comment in that report, made by a Turkish postgraduate student. She said:
	"The new Home Office fees for student visa extensions . . . are outrageous. Britain tries to attract foreign students and then rip them off in this way".
	She went on to say:
	"I felt myself like a sheep to be fleeced".
	The Home Office is now consulting to raise charges for "leave to remain" still further. Some charges will increase to nearly £500. My worry is that financial disincentives such as this will cause international students to look elsewhere. Australia, for example, has recently been successful in attracting more international students. The Government could find actions in one of their departments—the Home Office—undermining good intentions in another—the DfES. This is an issue which I intend to pursue further in a Starred Question later this month, but I would be interested in the Minister's views on the compatibility of high charges with attracting international students.
	As well as dominating the Queen's Speech, as has been said, the Home Office's policies are dominating the priorities of universities this year. I look forward to examining the Government's proposals in detail.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I have spoken before about my concerns in relation to the Constitutional Reform Bill, which the gracious Speech says will be taken forward. I do not intend to repeat myself, as it would be more suitable for me to deal with those matters on Report on the Bill, which we hope will start soon.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, described the Queen's Speech as containing a programme for reform and modernisation. I am happy to welcome proposals for reform; I find more difficulty with proposals that are only for modernisation when I do not really understand the principles on which that rests. Perhaps in concluding the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, will divide the proposals in the Queen's Speech between those that are properly described as reform and those that need the supplementary description of modernisation.
	I wish to associate myself very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said in relation to animal rights and charges for foreign students. I happen to be the chancellor of Heriot-Watt University so have an interest of a kind to declare in that connection. I warmly endorse what she said on both matters. Certainly, the charges to foreign students need to be very seriously reconsidered.
	I wish to make some observations about the programme in the Queen's Speech affecting the justice system. The criminal justice system in England and Wales is large, complicated and highly regulated by detailed statutory provisions. Even if proposals for change are highly meritorious, too many introduced too closely on one another are apt to lead to mistakes and failures, as the people who operate the system cannot adequately absorb them. They must be given substantial time not only to absorb the letter of the changes—it is one thing to read them and perhaps understand what one reads—but also to give effect to them in their daily practice. The proposals are intended to affect the daily practice of people who are busy and may find it quite difficult to remember all the changes that have taken place. Even if changes are highly desirable, I strongly urge that they should be introduced at a reasonable pace, and that steps should be taken to ensure that the people operating the system understand what is meant and can give effect to it.
	The only other matter with which I want to deal, briefly, is the same as that which occupied the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in relation to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. In Part 4 of it, which deals with public order and conduct in public places, Clause 119 is about racial and religious hatred. Schedule 10 expands the scope of Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 to deal with racial and religious hatred. Racial hatred is dealt with already, as the right reverend Prelate explained; provisions on it give protection to racial groups such as Jews, as he mentioned. The definition of religious hatred introduced is that it is,
	"hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief".
	As he pointed out, there is no specific definition of religion or, indeed, of the absence of it; he did not regard that as very important and perhaps it is not. However, it is important to see what the provision may do.
	Religious groups are different in character from racial groups. The racial group is normally defined by objective criteria. Religious groups are somewhat more difficult to define, and we are accustomed to variations in religious groups. For example, we hear about Christian fundamentalists, who presumably make up a sub-group—perhaps a reasonably small one; I do not know—of Christians. We hear of Islamic extremists. Do they make up a sub-group of the Islamic religion, or are they to be regarded as having a different religion?
	One problem that I see is that sometimes people engage in a course of conduct that most ordinary people would describe as hateful or very objectionable. They may try to justify that conduct by reference to religious belief or religious persuasion. If that is the case, it is very difficult to distinguish between hatred of the conduct justified in that way and hatred of the group defined by reference to the religious belief prayed in aid as justification of conduct. We have had quite a number of such descriptions in the past year or two in relation to terrorist activities, which are regarded by every right-thinking person as highly hateful and undesirable.
	Like the right reverend Prelate, I am glad that the consent of the Attorney-General is required before a prosecution is brought, but that is not quite the same as a clear definition of the conduct in question. If one engages in conduct, one cannot know in advance whether the Attorney-General will agree to a prosecution if the conduct falls within the definition in what ultimately would be the Act of Parliament. At the very least, I see—the right reverend Prelate hinted at it—a dangerous chilling of the right of free speech if the provision is introduced.
	I therefore very much suggest that the matter requires to be examined with great care. I understand the objectives that were in mind in introducing it, but it could contain dangers that may be avoided by careful drafting or, indeed, omission. I entirely endorse the view that the faith groups have within them a capacity for ensuring peace in our country that, given free rein, might well be more successful than any legislation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate's story of the street preacher who was arrested for the gloom and doom contained on his placard reminded me of the American revivalist preacher, Jonathan Edwards, the protagonist of the "Great Awakening", whose 1741 sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God still inspires the religious right in that country. He preached that,
	"the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them . . . And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before to-morrow morning".
	That was his message, but it is not the only message. Another way to salvation was outlined in the "Welsh Revival" of 1904. Evan Roberts, the 27 year-old leader of that revival, who was sent down the pit at the age of 12, preached at Bryn Seion chapel in Trecynon on 14 November 1904, almost 100 years ago to the day. Speaking in Welsh, he stated:
	"I have not come here to frighten you with a discourse on the terrors of everlasting punishment. I believe that the love of God is a powerful enough magnet to draw the people".
	His mission strengthened and renewed the social fabric of Wales. Crime figures were down by 50 per cent and in some villages and towns all pubs and clubs were shut. Indeed, even last night I heard a discussion between commentators at the Llanelli versus Ulster rugby match about whether there would be a good turnout in Llanelli because it was a chapel town. The political landscape was changed for ever. In 1905, the following year, every parliamentary seat in Wales went to the Liberal Party and David Lloyd George, who did not hesitate to be pictured with the great revivalist and to attend those meetings, brought the inspiration of that revival to his programme of social reform—old age pensions, national insurance and the people's Budget, which he described as,
	"a war on poverty and squalor, paid from the taxes of the rich".
	That is why we had the Parliament Act of 1911.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said today that she was not bringing a message of doom and gloom. We are promised salvation from this Queen's Speech. I must ask myself, what, in Mr Blunkett's hell, are his particular demons? Are they the immigrant, the paedophile, the drug pusher, the yob and the terrorist? We are to live in a state of fear, pursued by those demons in our society. Mr Peter Hain, the Elmer Gantry of the new Labour revivalism, claims to save the nation. He says that Britain will be safer under Labour and that the Tories' and the Liberal Democrats' records are disgraceful. I assume that he has some messianic view of himself as the replacement Home Secretary, if not the future leader of the march of new Labour. No doubt he believes that the police services and the security services will work harder for him than for anyone else. Hence, I imagine that he supports the proposals in the Queen's Speech for a power of arrest for all offences. His approach is one with which we are familiar—round up the usual suspects.
	So, immigrants and asylum seekers—another demon—threaten our jobs and our social security system, do they? Well, if you were to take out of this Government all the Welsh, Irish, Scots and descendents of immigrant families, there would be no one left, except, perhaps, Mr Blunkett. Therefore, let us all carry with us identity cards so that we can prove to the police and to the civil servants that we are all good Anglo-Saxons acceptable to the Daily Mail. Let us tell them where we live and, perhaps, our financial standing and maybe our speeding convictions. Maybe it would be useful to know our religion and, of course, whether we are engaged in terrorism or paedophilia. And if we have lost the ID cards or the technology does not work, no doubt the police services will know why we should be locked up.
	So immigration is one of the demons—immigration to be conquered by the identity card. Paedophiles are another demon. People are demonised, but it is always forgotten that they are generally victims themselves, certainly in my experience. The problem is not to lock them up but to break the chain that has existed, so that their conduct will not be repeated.
	The Government's strategies for the drug pusher and the drug user have failed. Gun warfare between gangs threatens our major cities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out that gun crime has already doubled. Violent crime is up 12 per cent, according to the latest Home Office statistics. Drugs are now as readily available on our streets, and are as cheap, as cigarettes or alcohol. I am told by my clients that they are more easily available in prison than they are in the street. Pushing up prison sentences will not curb the criminal, because the potential profits of that illegal trade are too great.
	While we welcome the prospect of another new Bill that relates to drugs, a constructive and sensible debate is needed on how to destroy the profits and the profiteers of the illegal drugs market and how to challenge, to rehabilitate and to treat addicts by controlling legally the supply of drugs. That, we are told, is the way forward that No. 10's own advisers counsel. But we are into election time, and, no doubt, anything that I say about drugs may be categorised as being "soft on drugs", as some unknown Labour MP said about our candidate in Hartlepool because, as a barrister, she had defended someone on a drugs charge.
	The next demon is the yob. I opposed the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders on the basis that it was wrong to impose imprisonment and fines upon an individual for breach of a civil order—an order that would be obtained on hearsay evidence with proof judged on a balance of probabilities. I was concerned that chit-chat and anonymous complaints could be used to impose a severe limitation on liberty, with the distinct possibility of criminal sanctions to follow. However, the Judicial Committee of this House, in the case of McCann in 2002, decided, first, that although the application was indeed a civil procedure and that hearsay evidence was therefore admissible, its weight may well be limited and, secondly, that the allegations must be proved in those proceedings to the criminal standard. We accept that on those conditions, ASBOs are of use in the short term. But to be effective in the long term, they must change behaviour. An ASBO must only be used in conjunction with action to tackle the underlying causes of the individual's problems. It should open the door to programmes to tackle drugs and to educate and train those who are excluded from school or are unemployed. When the Government's Bill to extend the range of ASBOs and their powers is published, it is to those areas that we on these Benches will be looking.
	Finally, the demon is the terrorist. A terrorist incident may happen or it may not. If we, as a society, are for ever looking over our shoulders in fear, if we are for ever making our society less democratic, less open and less just, the aims of the terrorist will have been achieved without his doing anything. That was not the way that this country behaved when threatened by world war or by the IRA. Public confidence in trial by jury was not weakened, nor was it ever thought necessary to alter the basic principle of the presumption of innocence and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indefinite administrative detention in Belmarsh, as there is now, was unthinkable in the past.
	What has made us especially vulnerable to terrorist attack, anyway? This government have sought to alarm us and to put us in fear before in another area. We were told:
	"His weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing".
	That was a phrase which led us into the hell of war, where that "glittering sword" was whet once more. So, when we come to examine the Government's proposals in detail, we shall do so from a position of strength—a belief on these Benches in the robustness of the British people to resist fear, a belief in democratic institutions where the safeguards of liberty which we enjoy have been forged and a belief in a system of justice where they have been maintained.

Baroness Prosser: My Lords, it is with great pride and pleasure and not a little humility that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time. Like others before me, I have been both delighted and heartened by the warm welcome, the unfailing politeness and the generous assistance I have received from Peers and from the staff of this House. This is a far more gentle world than that to which I have been accustomed.
	In my preparations to enter this House, I attended, as required, the office of Garter Kings of Arms. I was thrilled when he agreed that my full title could be the Baroness Prosser, of Battersea in the London Borough of Wandsworth. I was born in Battersea, as were my three sisters, my father and my grandfather. For a while, my grandfather ran a greengrocer's shop. Such shops are hard to find in Battersea nowadays. As if by osmosis, they have become estate agents and bijoux restaurants.
	The changes that have taken place in Battersea since my family and I were there can be seen as a microcosm of the changes that have taken place in society generally and, indeed, in my own fortunes. For almost three-quarters of the last century, Battersea was a travel-to-work area. Morgan's Carbon and Gartons glue factories, the Rank Hovis mill and Price's candles were only some of the sites and plants providing work for thousands of local people. Now there is a Price's candle shop, but the main sites are predominantly up-market housing.
	Battersea Power Station, dejected and downcast, reminds us of the industrial past. Hundreds of men were employed there, almost all of whom were members of my union—the Transport and General Workers' Union. Many plans for the future of the power station have been discussed over the years. Who knows, my Lords? It may be one of the "lucky eight" to become a USA-style casino. If that does become the case, I am sure that the T&G will want to be in there, recognising change and organising a very different kind of worker.
	At the beginning of the 20th century, Battersea became politically famous. In 1913, a British-born man of Barbardian and Irish parentage became the first black mayor ever to be elected in Britain. John Archer made history himself and then, in 1922, he acted as agent for an Indian man named Shapurji Saklatvala, who became the first black Member of Parliament, taking his seat on the Labour Benches in the other place as the Member for Battersea North. After such a promising start, one wonders why so little progress has been made in changing the face of the British political scene.
	I moved away from Battersea before starting school, returning briefly in the 1960s with my young family to live on the sixteenth floor of a GLC tower block, right opposite Morgan's Carbon. The views across the river and Battersea Park were splendid, but that is about the only good thing which could be said about my tower-block-living experience. With all due respect to the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, perhaps I may say that if he had spent time living in a tower block in an industrial wasteland he might have a rather different view of an ASBO.
	I have always had an urge to involve myself in public life. My involvement in various parts of south London with tenants groups, playground associations and so on led to my gaining employment and all-important training, which, in turn, enabled me to gain professional employment with the Southwark Law Project. We were a newly established Home Office-funded community law centre, and we discussed avidly which trade union we should join, plumping for the then 2 million-strong T&G. My frustration with the union's lack of interest in any issues of particular importance to women workers made me more and more determined to get involved and to bring about change. My career with the T&G has been varied, tough, fruitful and, most of all, enjoyable and educational.
	Throughout that period, some social change has been for the good and some for the not so good. The reduction in locally available manual work has been accompanied by an increase in cleaner jobs and, of course, cleaner air. The river has been opened up to more people but the roads are choked with traffic. The demography of Battersea has changed enormously, by both class and ethnicity, but there remain pockets of poverty and poor social housing. Upward social mobility has not been for all.
	My reference to social mobility brings me to my point of substance in this home affairs debate. There is social mobility of another kind—a social mobility which starts with hope and aspiration and ends in forced mobility: forced mobility of men as cheap labour and of women and children for the purpose, in the main, of prostitution.
	The trafficking of human beings is one of the fastest growing and most heinous of crimes. People trafficking is defined by the Home Office as,
	"transporting people in order to exploit them, using deception, intimidation or coercion".
	It is estimated by the International Organization for Migration on 2001 figures that between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are trafficked each year. In 1998, the United Nations estimated global profits from trafficking to be a massive 7 billion dollars annually.
	Women's organisations in the UK have provided evidence to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, a UN convention adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 and ratified by 175 states, including the UK. The evidence was based upon the belief that trafficking of women for the purposes of prostitution amounts to violence against women. In a Written Answer on 18 October this year in another place, the Government expressed their support for international co-operation:
	"We are participating fully in the development of the draft Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which has a clear victim focus and will build upon existing instruments".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/04; col. 484W.]
	Other organisations, such as the POPPY Project, which provides housing and support for trafficked women, and CHASTE, a faith-based group, are working to provide and promote information and action.
	I am aware that Her Majesty's Government have done much to try to deal with this dreadful situation. The announcement that the Government intend to establish a serious organised crime agency is a welcome one, and such a body will assist with national and international co-ordination of work currently taking place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for raising this issue by way of a Question earlier this afternoon because, while the role of Government is crucial, we must all play our part by ensuring that the issues are made clear and that the British public are aware of, and share our abhorrence of, such terrible crimes.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and to be able to congratulate her on an interesting speech and, in particular, on her eulogy of Battersea. Her experience is certainly a valuable addition to your Lordships' House, and we look forward to hearing from her many times in the future. I am also happy to note from her CV that we are of the same vintage—I hope she finds that it was a good year.
	I also strongly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on visa applications for foreign students attending British universities. I speak as a governor of the University of Hertfordshire. It is of vital importance that we make the provision of visas for such students as simple as possible. I wholly support the noble Baroness's argument.
	In the gracious Speech, the Government committed themselves to strengthening,
	"the powers the police and others have to fight crime".—[Official Report, 23/11/04; col. 2.]
	While such a policy may seem obvious and attractive at first sight, on further reflection it is fraught with dangers. The police force in this country has earned the rare and admirable reputation of being the citizen's friend. "If in difficulty, ask a policeman", is advice that any parent would traditionally be willing to give a child. The police were proud to be the protectors of personal liberty. It will be a sad day if that is no longer the case and if policemen and policewomen are being trained to intrude on personal liberty.
	The story in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph is a disturbing case in point. The person in question is reported to have been driving along the Embankment towards Westminster when he was flagged down by two policemen. They claimed to be doing random checks and to be training two of the new category of police community support officers (CSOs), who were also present. The driver agreed to their request to search his car, during which process a Swiss multi-tool penknife and a small collapsible baton were found in his briefcase. He was promptly arrested for possessing offensive weapons and for carrying a bladed instrument in public. He was forced to abandon his car, which later received a parking ticket, and marched off to Charing Cross police station where he was charged.
	If true, that is a horrifying story. How many times have we all carried knives for a picnic lunch or garden hedge clippers in the boots of our cars? Even the tools required to change a flat tyre could be regarded as offensive weapons. Whatever the risks of international terrorism, we must not allow this country to drift into becoming a police state. Police community support officers (CSOs) are now to be followed by the serious organised crime agency (SOCA). It all seems to be eerily reminiscent of other well-known acronyms like STASI or NKVD.
	We in this House have a special duty to defend personal liberty as a human right. We must take special care to ensure that the wholly justifiable efforts to fight organised crime and anti-social behaviour do not become a threat to personal liberty and to the proud freedom for which generations of our forebears have fought.
	I turn to the problem of drug use and the crime that flares from it. It is a global problem and a subject on which strong and often emotive views are held. I am one of those who believe that it is the fact of prohibition itself that is the principal cause of the problem. I was brought up on stories of Al Capone, and it is a complete mystery to me why the lessons of alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s and 1930s have not been applied to the drug problem.
	Current policies, it is estimated, cost this country more than £10 billion a year, whereas if drugs were decriminalised, controlled and taxed, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco, the Exchequer would have the tax revenue to pay for harm reduction and treatment programmes and to finance all-important publicity campaigns against drug misuse.
	Abraham Lincoln said in 1840:
	"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes".
	Those addicted to drugs, like those addicted to alcohol, are sick. They are not basically criminals. They become criminals only when they steal or cause damage or injury to others. They need treatment, not prison sentences. Sadly, that is heresy in official circles and, as we know, our Government are intent on creating the new serious organised crime agency to conduct the next round in the war on drugs.
	The hope that I wish to express is that, alongside this new initiative—in case, like its predecessors, it turns out to be a failure—the Government will instigate an open-minded, global debate on the merits and demerits of prohibition. In that context I recommend that they, and all noble Lords, study an excellent and balanced recent report produced by Transform Drug Policy Foundation, entitled After the War on Drugs—Options for Control. That report offers no miracle cures, but it examines the global situation and the practical problems and comes up with a road map for reform.
	To sum up, therefore, I believe that we must stand up for the protection of personal liberty and human rights in the war against international terrorism and domestic anti-social behaviour and, in the case of the drugs problem, we should support a global reassessment of the merits of prohibition.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on an excellent speech. She is a tremendous person. The whole speech possessed honesty, integrity and authenticity. It was a marvellous speech and I am proud to follow it.
	I stand here today with some nervousness, but much awe. I feel proud and privileged to be a part of this House, a part of Parliament. I am quite unambiguous about this: I consider being in this place, having the chance to speak in this debate, to be an honour far beyond anything I ever expected in life.
	Other maiden speakers have remarked fulsomely on the warmth that they have received as new Members. I echo that. People could not have been nicer to me—not just the excellent staff who work here, nor my political friends, but also my political opponents. I particularly appreciated the welcome of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who last week in this House compared me and a government Minister to Burke and Hare, the notorious mass murderers of the early 19th century who claimed 16 victims in a particularly ghoulish fashion before Burke was finally executed, and Hare escaped into obscurity after turning King's evidence. I am not sure whether to take that as a warning, an admonition, or a helpful piece of advice.
	In a House of such extraordinary range of expertise mine is rather arcane: the planning and fighting of election campaigns. I have not always been successful even at that. As one newspaper commented:
	"Labour's newest peer is probably best known for losing things. In 1997 it was the election campaign: he left the entire strategy— every advertisement and every poster—at the Burger King restaurant in Euston Station on the first day of the campaign. On plenty of other occasions he has lost the election as well. He lost for Labour in 1987 and 1992, and for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in 1990".
	All of us have moments we would like to forget. The article goes on to say that I imported focus groups into the UK for use in politics, an importation that I am sure some would put on a par with rabies or black elm disease, with a roughly equivalent effect on the quality of British politics.
	Of course, it would not have been appropriate, nor possible, for me to have made this speech without conducting my own focus groups on this august House. The results, as always, show how subtle public opinion can be. People think that the House of Lords is, at one and the same time, somewhat old fashioned and an important part of the contemporary political process, and they like it the more because there is less bipartisan acrimony.
	Of course, there are difficulties with identifying some of our Members. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for example, was believed to be Michael Caine and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, Des Lynam. No one ever said that the judgment of the public is impeccable.
	Discovering the voice of the people has always been an obsession for me. I have always held the view that the voices of all should be heard, and should be heard equally. That was, and is, the lodestar of my political life, and from the very start I have believed that the voice of the people should be trusted. I once described the typical attitudes of the very unassuming lower middle class suburb in which I was bought up. I wrote:
	"Every political judgment was rooted in a hard common sense. They were tough on crime. They were fiercely patriotic. They believed in fair reward for hard work; in responsibility. They wanted to get on. They wanted a better life".
	That to me is the authentic voice of Britain, at least the Britain I know and understand best.
	I have always respected that voice, always sought to hear it and always valued it. And yet I know many, and some in this Chamber, are frightened by that, fearing rule by demagogue, by populist sentiment, by ill-informed mass opinion. But I say to those who are frightened, let go of your fear. There is no dark hidden underswell of populist opinion ready to sweep away the liberalism and the judicial rights we have enjoyed for generations. There are only mums and dads and kids and grandparents; people living tough lives, doing demanding jobs, coping with change, dealing with uncertainty and grounded in values of fairness and responsibility.
	Nowhere is that fear of the people greater than with the issues that surround crime and security. Nowhere, I believe, is that fear more misplaced. Of course people care about crime, because without security from crime, life for many cannot even start. It cannot get going. It is the poor who suffer most from burglary; the young and disadvantaged who suffer most from violent crime; and the elderly who see the disfiguring of their community as a disfiguring of themselves and of their past.
	Crime is the most fundamental violation of a person's civil liberty that it is possible to imagine. In response to that people do not have the simple one-dimensional opinions so often ascribed to them but complex, nuanced views. They want tough sentences for serious crimes; and when it comes to terrorism they want no risks taken and no corners cut to protect their family and their nation. But it is also true that people believe that prison is not the only answer to crime and that rehabilitation is essential. They know that dealing with the causes of crime is as vital as dealing with its perpetrators.
	The public have a balanced view. They do not see crime as an issue of right and left but of rights and responsibility. There is an implicit bargain between citizen and state: the state protects, the citizen contributes and liberty ensues. This contract is at the heart of our society and it is the responsibility of us all to honour it. We do not do so by leaving public concerns behind, nor by failing to respect equally all parts of the bargain. The British people value liberty, but they know that without security liberty crumbles.
	The goal of politics is not to concede to fear but to defeat it. Ours have always been the politics of hope. The more secure a community or nation, the greater the chance of opportunity. The more opportunity there is, the safer our world will be. Our people do not want their leaders to form camps—some for security, some for liberty, some tough and some tolerant. They want their leaders to be bigger and more visionary than that, knowing that in this new world liberty and security must learn to coexist.
	It is a virtue of this House that differences can be transcended and a bigger view taken. The public respect this House because it can achieve balance, transcend politics and play a crucial revising role. In turn, we should respect the view of the British people, and know that they too seek balanced and serious solutions to these complex and difficult social issues.
	The measures outlined in the gracious Speech are right and the public are right to support them. We can trust the people. I once again thank this House for the honour of addressing it.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I count it a singular pleasure to be the one who follows that maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, which I found in equal measure to be both engaging and impressive as a declaration of his personal views.
	I do not think that our paths have crossed physically very much in the past, but of course there is no one in British politics whose path has not crossed with that of the noble Lord, Lord Gould, in one way or another. His is a name to conjure with as a political guru. He has had a significant influence on the development of the British political scene as it now is; and, indeed, on a personal level I suppose that I could hand him some of the credit for seven years ago bringing about my translation from the other end of the building to this one; a move for which—dare I say?—I find myself increasingly grateful.
	The noble Lord's arrival here under his new name undoubtedly—on the basis of the speech we have heard this afternoon—presages many more contributions of a depth and quality that we shall all listen to with great respect and, indeed, look forward to hearing in due course.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, perhaps I may also add a brief word about the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. I discovered that she and I have something in common. Her father was a greengrocer of a kind that has no doubt been swept largely aside by the supermarkets. My father was an old-style ironmonger. His was that kind of shop where a man in a brown coat can find anything in a drawer behind him, which has almost completely disappeared under the march of the supermarkets.
	I shall not attempt so wide-ranging a speech as the noble Lord, Lord Gould. I discovered that on wearing various hats which I shall not enumerate, I have an interest in many parts of the programme in the gracious Speech. However, I should acknowledge at once that the kind and generous remarks of my noble friend Lady Anelay were not an accurate prediction of what I should talk about, which was anti-terrorism matters. On that front I would rather wait and see what the Government have to say because one of the problems in that field has been too many hasty judgments and not enough reflection; and I think that the Government's proposals need to be considered.
	I want to focus, albeit in the non-partisan way that my noble friend predicted, on another measure which she did not mention, but which she is evidently leaving for comment by my noble friend Lord Kingsland on the Front Bench. That is the proposed draft courts and tribunals Bill. I declare at once an interest as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. I thought that the Times did the Bill a bit less than justice in saying in its summary list that the draft courts and tribunals Bill simplifies the law relating to bailiffs. "Survival rating: 0". That is, 0 out of 5, bearing in mind prospective political uncertainties. I do not have the faintest notion whether the Bill will include anything about bailiffs, but I know that I do not see that as its main point. More importantly, I very much hope that its survival rating is a great deal more than nil, for reasons that I hope to explain.
	As I have indicated, I am chairman of the Council on Tribunals and have been since 1999. That council was set up in the late 1950s after the Franks report with what is described as a supervisory role over tribunal systems.
	In a sense, my interest in these matters goes back further, to some 22 years ago when, as the mere Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and the humble servant of my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was responsible for, or in charge of in a day-to-day sense, a reform of the Social Security Appeal System, as it then was. For the first time, it transferred the appointment of the judiciary in that system to what was then the Lord Chancellor's Department and created a proper presidential system, independent to that degree of the department whose decisions were being challenged. I have always thought that that was the right way to go.
	Now, 20 years later we find that what I would really have liked to do at the time, which was to transfer the administration as well, will shortly happen. However, it will be helped materially if this Bill is not only published in draft but also passed into law.
	The background, of course, is that a huge amount has happened in the tribunal world since Franks and, indeed, even in the 20 years since I was concerned with the social security system. It is only recently that a new strategic look—after 40 years—has been taken at the whole tribunal world. That is greatly to the credit of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who in 2000 asked Sir Andrew Leggatt to conduct a wide-ranging review. He did that very rapidly and produced a report under the heading of Tribunals for Users—One System, One Service. Its core suggestion was to bring together tribunals scattered around the Whitehall scene into a single unified tribunals service.
	Not surprisingly, although it was always strongly supported by the Council on Tribunals and, indeed, by me personally, that proposal was not greeted with universal enthusiasm around Whitehall where government departments were being asked to give something up.
	After a long period of negotiation a White Paper was published last July called Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals, which brought the Government to sign up to that proposal. That White Paper was greatly to the credit not only of the present Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor but also not least to the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. He took a very special and constructive interest in this matter and produced a document setting tribunals into the wider context of administrative justice as a whole, including the improvement of decision making to avoid disputes in the first place and with a greater emphasis on proportional dispute resolution.
	I should acknowledge that that White Paper will bring a wider role to the Council on Tribunals, which we welcome and are already seeking to develop. With the clear commitment from the Government to a unified tribunals system, bringing five of the largest tribunal systems from outside the Department for Constitutional Affairs together with the five that it already has, to create the basis of the unified service, progress has significantly accelerated.
	We now have a senior president designate to provide judicial leadership, Lord Justice Carnwath. Within the next week or so, we shall have a chief executive designate. No doubt all of that can bring about quite a lot of progress without a Bill, but to complete that promising and worthwhile reform, we need a Bill. So I very much welcomed the commitment to a draft contained in the gracious Speech. I want also specifically to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to her post, as she, with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, has shown every sign of just as strong a commitment in that field as her predecessors. I look forward to working with them in that capacity.
	I wish her well. Perhaps I dare say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, bearing in mind the political uncertainties to which I referred earlier, that I hope that my Front Bench, whether it remains in opposition or should any change occur to its position, will also ensure that those worthwhile proposals receive a fair wind. If I have any questions for the noble Baroness, they are: when will we see the draft and how soon after that will it be a real Bill with a real basis for those very worthwhile reforms?

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, being summoned to the office of the new party leader is always a rather nerve-racking experience, even when the leader is as benign as my noble friend Lord McNally, so I was rather relieved when I discovered that the purpose of the call was to ask me if I would become the party spokesman on issues relating to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I must say that my first thought was to wonder how on earth I would ever manage to follow the commitment and calm professionalism of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I should like to place on record today the debt of gratitude owed to her by the whole House.
	My second thought concerned the scope of the job that had just been offered me. Had I been given the task of shadowing Mr Prescott in 1997, my writ would have run large across the environment, transport, local government, regional government, planning, housing, rural issues and urban regeneration. By 2001, I would have lost rural issues and the environment and, only 14 months later, I would have seen transport disappear to the Department for Transport and electoral law to the Lord Chancellor's Department. So I rather feel that I have been asked to be a shadow to a shadow. I hope that noble Lords will forgive my speaking today in the debate on the gracious Speech, despite there being no ODPM legislation, but I am afraid that if I do not speak today, there may be no responsibilities left for me to speak about later.
	The programme for what is left of this Parliament contains a huge hole where the regional assemblies Bill should have been. As the House is due to debate that topic on Wednesday, I shall not detain your Lordships on the issue, but I wish to place on record the strong feeling on these Benches that the current regional settlement is not satisfactory and that the Government must give some thought to how they resolve the mess that now exists, which is entirely of their making.
	We now have a significant element of administrative regional devolution. That was initiated by the previous Conservative government but has now been overlaid by regional development agencies and a raft of regional quangos that spend billions of taxpayers' money but are only very indirectly accountable to national government. The current regional assemblies are at least some effort to create a kind of democratic framework and I have no quarrel with any of the individuals who serve on them, but those bodies have no real authority to hold either government or quangos to account. Their main function is to create strategies over which they have little or no power of delivery.
	The Government's timidity in offering an elected assembly with no powers or money to the people of the north-east, along with enforced local government reorganisation, was doomed to fail from the start. We always said so from these Benches and sought to persuade the Government to pursue a more convincing regional programme. Their refusal to do so has led to the loss of the referendum in the north-east and the whole cause of regional devolution being left in limbo.
	The second omission from the government programme for this term is a Bill to deal with the increasingly unfair and unsustainable council tax. Since 1997, council tax increases in some counties have soared by almost 100 per cent. That is regardless of their political control. It is no wonder that pensioners in Devon are protesting when their council tax has risen by 95.5 per cent in eight years. We will know later this week whether the rumours of a pre-election giveaway by the Chancellor to keep this year's increase to an acceptable level are true, but that does not alter the basic fact that council tax is unfair, regressive and expensive to collect.
	If that were not bad enough, the Government are about to embark on a complete revaluation exercise. That will begin in the late spring, we are told. Initial estimates from the Local Government Association suggest that about 90 per cent of all properties will go up by at least one band. What sort of system is it in which people who were already struggling to find affordable homes are further punished by swingeing council tax rises? The sooner that we change to the sort of local income tax that is used in Sweden, the better it will be.
	In powerful maiden speeches today, we have heard both the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and the noble Lord, Lord Gould, talk about their background and localities. That demonstrates how important locality is, even in the Starbucks era. All local parties are now talking about localism. Although I am sure that they all mean it, we are not clear what they mean by it. Three quarters of local council expenditure comes from government grant. While that is the case, we will always have a system that is largely local administration, not local government. That stifles local diversity and diminishes public esteem for local government. It gives rise to central government interference at every level through a regime of target setting, ring-fencing and performance indicators.
	The sort of aspirations contained within the Government's clean neighbourhoods Bill, although probably reasonable in themselves, do not need grand national frameworks. They need to ensure that councils have the funding that they need and are then left alone to get on with the job.
	On the subject of that Bill, I should like to make a passing reference to the idea that parish councillors should be able to issue fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. I have been a county councillor in a rural area for the past 12 years. Not once have I ever heard a parish councillor, or anyone else, for that matter, say that that would be a useful power to have. There are all sorts of reasons why people become parish councillors, but, in my experience, it is never to become community police. It is hard enough to get people to serve as parish councillors as it is. Not one of my parishes has held an election in the 12 years during which I have been involved. Expecting councillors to fulfil that role could drive many more away.
	Real devolution, real localism, whether we are discussing regional or parish councils, must be clearly thought through. It needs to be part of an overall constitutional settlement. Some powers clearly need to be held at higher levels than others, but all powers need to be properly funded and, above all, matched by real democratic accountability.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I take the opportunity of today's debate on the gracious Speech to raise one issue arising from the concordat reached between the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I am not a lawyer, but I was a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House that considered the Constitutional Reform Bill. That gave me an insight into the Bill that I should not otherwise have had. Noble Lords will recall that the concordat followed the original government announcement of constitutional changes last year and it has been largely incorporated into the Constitutional Reform Bill, which reaches Report shortly.
	The Select Committee considering that Bill, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, considered many issues in a very tight timetable. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tabled hundreds of amendments to his Bill. Many of those amendments were agreed without debate because they were said to be consequential and reflected a fundamental point of the concordat: that the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor (or Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), was to be the professional head of the judiciary of England and Wales.
	Many Acts of Parliament, stretching back over many decades and even centuries, contain phrases such as "the Lord Chancellor will approve", "the Lord Chancellor will appoint" or other words authorising an action that was in statute the sole responsibility of one individual, the Lord Chancellor. Those responsibilities mostly relate to the Lord Chancellor's position as both head of the judiciary and a Minister of the Crown, since both legal and executive considerations were relevant to the action. For example, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 contain dozens of references to actions and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. Two Acts passed in the previous Session—the Civil Partnerships Act and the Armed Forces (Pension and Compensation) Act—also contain references to actions falling to the Lord Chancellor to discharge.
	Under the rubric of the concordat, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seeks to amend all those Acts by replacing the words "the Lord Chancellor", where appropriate, with such phrases as "the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may if he thinks fit and if the Lord Chief Justice agrees" or "the Lord Chancellor, where appropriate, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice". Following the first day of Committee on the Floor of the House last Session, such phrases may need further amendment to keep the words "Lord Chancellor".
	Whatever the precise wording, the position henceforth, when the Constitutional Reform Bill reaches the statute book, will be that two individuals must be in agreement before some action, previously the sole responsibility of the present Lord Chancellor, can happen. My concern is that, should the new Minister and the Lord Chief Justice fail to agree on a necessary action, there could be stalemate. Some may think that it is so unlikely that it would never become an issue; but decisions are required on this large number of Acts—perhaps some quickly because of the nature of events.
	At one stage the Government suggested that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs need not be a lawyer. Regardless of whether the Minister is a lawyer, it is possible that the Lord Chief Justice and the Minister might not agree, for strongly held legal or political reasons or, conceivably, even reasons of personal antipathy. I question whether it is entirely sensible to adulterate the straightforward responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in so many statutes, leaving the possibility of future difficulty. The wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about not overloading the legal system are also relevant. Some may argue that any difficulty would resolve itself by the pressure of events—maybe so, maybe not.
	I suggested, but with limited support in the Select Committee, that a parallel might be drawn with the Chief of the Defence Staff, the professional head of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State for Defence as the executive head. The argument against that is that the independence of the Lord Chief Justice from the executive should be absolute. Ultimately, the same cannot be true for the Chief of the Defence Staff and his Secretary of State.
	Nevertheless, I fear that there is a potential serious weakness in the intended application of a part of the present concordat arrangement. It may never surface, but is it a lesser weakness than the perceived one of a Lord Chancellor wearing two hats, as a member of the executive and head of the judiciary? That model served the nation well over generations; it is tried and tested and has worked for all manners of government in the past. If, nevertheless, change must be made, it might still be possible to adopt the pattern of two heads—a professional and an executive head of the judiciary—so that either the Lord Chief Justice or the Minister, but not both, inherits the responsibilities and statutes at present discharged solely by the Lord Chancellor.
	My service background and experience has taught me to value a clear chain of command. The proposed arrangements do not provide one. I am not optimistic that this plea will find much favour with the Government or even the Lord Chief Justice, so I shall follow with interest how their proposed new arrangements, if they are enacted, work out in practice.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the Government for the proposed legislation in the gracious Speech to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion. Not only is it proof of a Government willing to confront religiously motivated prejudice and attacks, but it is also an important step towards the promotion of equality in Britain.
	Before I say more about the need for religious discrimination laws, I wish to comment on the Government's legislation to fight crime and terrorism. I am deeply concerned about the erosion of civil liberties, whether through trial without jury, pre-emptive measures to lock up people without charge, like those in Belmarsh prison, or ID cards. I hope very much that the Government will ensure that all those measures will not be targeted at a single community that has been the victim of the previous legislation.
	In the past I have raised issues regarding stop-and-search measures and the use of military police in places where those measures have been enforced. Rather than being founded on intelligence-led information, such measures have been taken on the basis of appearance and perception. This is wrong.
	Under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the terrorism legislation of 2001, the number of Asians stopped and searched has increased by 302 per cent. That creates the perception of unfair policing. We must ensure that, whatever measures are taken, they are based on evidence rather than the gut feeling of a single official.
	Accordingly, there is a need for transparency in these procedures. The Government must maintain a system of checks and balances to prevent any discrimination and abuse in the system. It is vital that we have equality across the board to ensure that all citizens in every community feel that they are equal in the United Kingdom. It is not because someone "looks Asian or Muslim" that they are a terrorist or a criminal. We must not discriminate against people just because of their colour or their looks. When legal and political institutions take seriously the concerns of every group and reflect an understanding of identity, people become much more inclined to comply without feeling targeted or coerced. I strongly believe that the people should have confidence in both the Government and the agencies delivering the service.
	We are aware of the reports that say that the Government do not provide equality to Muslims. According to the Open Society Institute's overview, entitled Muslims in the UK: Policies for Engaged Citizens, of spring 2004, one third of Muslims feel that the Government have been doing too little to protect the rights of different faiths in Britain. Muslims also feel marginalised and isolated. For example, in London, Muslims make up 8 per cent of the population, yet a quarter of them live in Tower Hamlets or Newham. Furthermore, 80 per cent of British Muslims have felt subjected to Islamophobia, while one in three feels that the Government have been doing too little to protect the rights of different groups.
	To understand the problems faced by such groups and ethnic minority communities, we need extra resources in the Faith Communities Unit in the Home Office, rather than an empire in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that deals with Muslim issues. Over 50 per cent of British Muslims were born in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why we have so many officials in the Foreign Office wanting to deal with British Muslims.
	For all those reasons, I congratulate the Government, in particular the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, on supporting legislation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of religion and incitement to religious hatred. The Race Relations Act 1976 already protects the Jewish and Sikh communities—rightly so. We have laws in Northern Ireland and, I understand, in Scotland that protect people against discrimination on the ground of their religion. There is a need for laws throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, I will support the Government on the issue.
	Such legislation would highlight the fact that Islamophobia—a contemporary form of racism—is wrong and illegal. Secondly, it would allow all agencies, including the law enforcement agencies, to prosecute those responsible for discriminating against people on the ground of their religion, because of their appearance, their faith or their colour.
	We all know that, in the Muslim community, there is huge poverty, unemployment, social deprivation and social exclusion. We know that, in comparison with other faith groups, a high proportion of working-age Muslims have no qualifications, particularly in the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, which have the highest unemployment rate among the ethnic minorities—38 per cent in some areas. People are living in poor housing. Some 32 per cent live in overcrowded accommodation, compared with 6 per cent of the indigenous population. Unemployment among the ethnic minorities is at 7.6 per cent, compared with 3.9 per cent in the overall population in Britain.
	Everyone recognises that the Muslim community has helped to support and rebuild Britain's infrastructure and economy in the past 40 or 50 years. A third of the workforce of the National Health Service comes from the ethnic minority communities. The ethnic minority communities, particularly the Muslim community, have made a huge contribution to the textile and steel factories and the transport service as well as to the GDP.
	I support the Government's proposals for the incitement to religious hatred laws. They will protect the minorities. I understand that there are people in my community too who have been inciting hatred of other British citizens. I strongly believe that the new laws will stop such people inciting hatred of others. Time after time, I have said in the House that Islam is a peaceful religion. Those from my community who incite hatred have no relevance. Chapter 29, verse 46 of the Qur'an says:
	"And do not dispute with the people of earlier Scripture, save in good manner, except with those of them who do wrong, and say: We believe in what has been revealed . . . to you and our God and your God is one, and to him do we submit in Islam".
	In other words, there is no room for people who incite hatred between religious groups.
	I hope that the legislation will help Britain to leap forward into the 21st century, by building bridges between all communities and giving equality to all citizens of the United Kingdom.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I regret that I cannot follow too closely on from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. He and I have travelled together overseas, and I think that we share many concerns. The reason for my diverging is that I wish to turn to the home affairs of Northern Ireland, which I have visited twice this year and every year since 1978.
	It is clear that society in Northern Ireland remains deeply divided, as it has been for generations, not only between the two main political and religious traditions but within them. There has obviously been major progress since the ceasefires of 1994 and even more since the Belfast agreement of 1998. Life is more normal, and things have improved for the great majority of the people. Unemployment has fallen, and general prosperity has risen. The climate for full implementation of the Belfast agreement—with any agreed modifications—is therefore favourable. However, figures for the month of September show that serious problems remain.
	Sectarian or paramilitary action wounded six people in that month, four of them seriously or critically. There were at least four attacks on premises, including a police station, two bars and private houses. A parcel bomb was sent to a councillor who was also a member of a district policing partnership. I am glad to say that that bomb did no harm. Such violence, as recorded in the three reports produced so far by the Independent Monitoring Commission, shows that old attitudes are still deeply ingrained. Prejudices continue, generating antagonism, hatred and fear. Problems still occur at the interfaces between communities of opposed character. Existing walls do something to mitigate clashes, and people sometimes ask for new walls to be built. Organised crime and rackets are often linked with various forms of intimidation. That is the background of violence, which is frequently very local in character but is none the less worrying in a population of only 1.6 million.
	I have described some of the obvious symptoms of a situation in which no one wants major violence—they have had enough of that—but many are prepared to live with a lower level of disorder and crime. It is a state of affairs in which reconciliation has not yet been achieved. Mutual respect, political co-operation and power sharing remain difficult aims. Behind it all lie the paramilitary groups, which are still in existence, still armed and are still training, recruiting and refusing to allow exiles to return.
	I hope that what I have said has not depressed your Lordships too much. No doubt, noble Lords will have heard some of it on previous occasions from other speakers. I shall try to redress the balance by outlining some positive work that has been done and is continuing. In 1998, a very mixed group of people came together to form Community Dialogue. Since then, with help from Stanford University in the United States, it has held over 500 day and evening seminars, 50 residentials and over 300 other events. The group has had widespread media coverage, I am glad to say.
	The purpose of that work was not so much to find solutions as to promote further dialogue, linked with critical thinking. The key questions have been the following. What is it that you really want? Why do you want it? What can you live with, given that others want something different? That work has been summed up in a book of about 142 pages, entitled, Peace Comes Dropping Slow, by the Reverend Brian Lennon SJ.
	To give another example, my personal friend and colleague Michael Hall has published more than 60 "Island Pamphlets", which record the dialogue that has taken place with and between community groups, often across the "interfaces" that I have already mentioned. They reflect the conversations of ex-prisoners, youth groups and a variety of local think-tanks. They have discussed the experiences of prisoners' families, of cross-border exchanges and mobile telephone networks. They record contemporary and oral history, as well as charting the impact of past history on those now alive.
	I suggest that those kinds of patient dialogue, often with little tangible outcome, are essential to the healing of a deeply divided society. Work of that kind can seldom be fully self-financing. It requires some organisation, some facilitation and some recording. Now that the European Union funds that are provided for peace and reconciliation are dwindling away, I urge the Government to do their utmost to enable dialogue work to continue, to involve more participants and to deepen their challenge to prejudices.
	Dialogue by itself of course will not resolve all problems. There is still much to be done for and with the victims of the Troubles. Ex-prisoners also have great potential and more should be done to remove the civil disabilities that still impose burdens on those with past criminal convictions. I refer particularly to mortgages and insurance, to certain kinds of drivers' licences and to employment in the public sector.
	The past in itself can be a problem. Options for dealing with that were set out in a report entitled, Healing Through Remembering, which was published in 2002. In that context, it was significant that the Mayor of Derry, coming from the Sinn Fein party, this year began a "day of reflection" in parallel with the customary Armistice commemoration. Integrated education, inter-church and inter-faith work, wherever possible at local and practical levels, all have enormous contributions to make.
	I have mentioned very briefly important issues on which progress can be made. Dialogue will, I suggest, smooth the path for each of those issues. It will help to dissolve the prejudices, hates and fears that have done so much to block tolerance and agreement. It will help also to create consent from the people upwards. That is why I commend dialogue so strongly to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, I should start by declaring a close interest in the issues that we are discussing today. I am chairman of the national Association of Police Authorities and of my local police authority in Lancashire. There are three main areas on which I shall comment; namely, the new serious organised crime agency, other aspects of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, such as new powers for both police and community support officers, and, finally, the proposals for an identity card scheme.
	Turning first to the new serious organised crime agency (SOCA), I can say that there is considerable support within the policing community as a whole for the new agency. It makes good sense to marshal our efforts to fight national and international crime by bringing together the work of the existing National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and others.
	SOCA will not be a police body. Indeed, it is a completely new type of animal—a law enforcement agency. I know that police authorities very much welcome the repeated assurances by Ministers and others that SOCA will not be a British FBI and that it will not be elitist and cavalier, parachuting into local communities and trampling over local concerns. SOCA will be successful only if it works in harmony with local police forces and has close connections with local communities.
	Over recent years, the policing world has been engaged with the Government in a considerable agenda of reform. The White Paper, Building Communities, Beating Crime, published earlier this month, set out the next steps in that programme. SOCA is one element. But equally important is the focus on neighbourhood policing. It is in our neighbourhoods that the effects of serious organised crime manifest themselves, often in the form of prostitution or gang warfare, as my noble friend Lady Prosser pointed out in her excellent maiden speech. It is our communities which suffer the consequences.
	It is therefore absolutely crucial to ensure that those connections between the national and local are woven into the statutory framework within which SOCA will operate, and that the governance of SOCA reflects—not replicates—the tripartite relationship which in policing balances both national and local interests.
	We also need to ensure that there is the right interface between the work of the serious organised crime agency, the work of local police forces and the bit in the middle, or level two crime as it is known in the trade—crime that crosses force boundaries. We also want reassurance that SOCA will continue to provide the intelligence and other support to forces that is currently available from the two national squads.
	I also feel bound to add that it should be adequately resourced for the work that it needs to do. Likewise, the police forces with which it will work closely should have the funding to address neighbourhood policing concerns and level two criminality.
	While the serious organised crime agency may be unique in some ways, it still needs to be grounded in the same principles that are fundamental to policing by consent in terms of being as open and accountable as possible; for example, through widespread consultation and engagement, through application of the freedom of information requirements and through having the same duties as other bodies to promote race equality and diversity.
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill is far-ranging. This is neither the time nor place to go into detail, but I should like to highlight a few other aspects. First, it includes measures to streamline police powers of arrest or "policing by discretion", as it has been dubbed. I am sure that this House will want to look rigorously at those proposals in order to ensure that they provide proper safeguards to our citizens while giving our police officers the tools to do their jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible.
	There are also proposals to extend the powers available to police community support officers. Those officers are already a visible and very reassuring presence on many streets around the country. They are not, as some have alleged, plastic policemen. To label them in that way is to denigrate hundreds—soon to be many thousands—of hardworking and enthusiastic community workers. They are part of the police family, but they do a rather different job from that of sworn officers. They are very accessible to and are popular with local communities. The measure of the success that they have achieved so far is that the recent allocation of more PCSOs by the Home Office was greatly oversubscribed by applications from forces and authorities. In addition to being an invaluable community resource, they are also a very diverse workforce—much more diverse than police forces—which strengthens their links with local people.
	I chair my local community safety partnership. Wearing that hat, I know that many people will welcome the prospect of police community support officers having more scope to tackle anti-social behaviour and enforce byelaws. However, equally, I know that some colleagues are wary that in giving PCSOs more powers, including powers to search detainees, we will risk losing their distinctive value; that is, their capacity to be out and about on the streets and readily accessible to communities. We therefore have to find a balance here, one which maintains the accessibility and visibility of PCSOs while at the same time maximises their effectiveness.
	I could not let this debate pass without mentioning two other measures which I know will be warmly welcomed by police authorities on behalf of their local communities. First, the proposed new duty on police authorities to provide information to local people about policing in their area. In many ways this simply codifies what is already happening. Police authorities are committed to giving local people as much information as possible about how their forces are performing. My association looks forward to working closely with the Government to build on that good practice in taking this measure forward.
	Secondly, the new offence of incitement to religious hatred. I agree strongly with previous speakers that it is crucial that policing protects and respects the interests of all the diverse communities we serve. This new provision is important and overdue.
	Finally, I want to say a word about the identity card scheme, an issue which I know arouses many strong apprehensions, but which also has strong support among the general public. For me, it is all about striking the right balance. Are the potential additional protections which identity cards could bring worth some limitation on our privacy? How do we achieve that protection without creating a big brother state? How can we most effectively capitalise on the fact that all of us now voluntarily carry various forms of ID, from credit cards to work passes, perhaps without realising that we are giving untold information about ourselves to supermarkets and stores? Can we ensure that the scheme is practicable and enforceable, and that it gives value for money? Crucially, can we ensure that it does not create an additional cause of mistrust in policing among our minority communities, but instead enhances feelings of security and community safety?
	I believe that there are positive benefits, but these and many other questions will be the subject of robust consideration by this House. I look forward to that discussion in due course, and to participating fully in the detailed debates when the legislation comes before us.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, this debate is about constitutional, legal and home affairs. First, I wondered whether one should speak about matters in Northern Ireland. It is not a bad day to wish the peace process well—and we do wish it well. Secondly, is it an occasion to talk about the regional dimension and the possibility of giving some form of democratic legitimacy to it?
	I was delighted at the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, when she told us about the charities Bill. I understand that it is to start over here in January. But I ask myself: and finish when? Is there any chance of it being finished in the other place by Maundy Thursday? I have my doubts.
	The one thing the gracious Speech did not say was, "My Government plan to hold an election on 5.5.05". It would have been novel had that been included, but the Sun newspaper tells us that it is a major event to come.
	We have heard two maiden speeches today. I heard that of the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, and some of that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. I shall read the rest. However, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Gould, speak about balance, I wondered whether this morning's full page advert in the Guardian taken out by the Labour Party and his maiden speech were connected.
	Can we look forward to an election, because it is elections which underlie constitutional affairs? I want to make a declaration of interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, a non-charitable grant-making company. It is our centenary next month, and before I finish I shall refer to our booklet, for which we funded the research.
	As we look forward to the election we know that there will be campaigning. Will it be vibrant or will it be dull? We know also that it will involve money. Do the election, campaigning and so forth have anything to do with Parliament? Regulation of politics is in place, certainly throughout my lifetime. Limits are laid on how much a candidate can spend at a general election, and limits are laid on how much local government candidates can spend. Indeed, I can recall regulations rationing the use of motor cars on election day. Candidates were allowed to use only 30 cars. They had a little sticker on each one. As they went to work, people used to whip them off and put them on another car.
	What is the national campaign about? It is about big money paying for broadcasts, adverts, pamphlets and manifestos, and no doubt hiring helicopters and aeroplanes. At the last general election, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party spent around £12 million apiece. Three or four wealthy people stumping up £3 million or £4 million each can cover it, but I do not think that is the way forward for elections.
	What is going to happen to turnout? We have been on a downward slide, although in the European election, even in areas that did not have a postal vote, turnout was higher. However, I think we do have difficulties with the number of people actively campaigning for those who want to be elected. Much of that work is done at the local level. Back in September, the New Politics Network produced a pamphlet called Life Support for Local Parties. It surveyed 12 constituencies and looked at all the active political parties in them. It is a study of decline, and quite a swift one. In one northern inner city area the total membership of the three active political parties was 309. I believe that voting and political activity are connected, and they have both been in serious decline.
	We know that the Electoral Commission is due to publish its report on the funding of politics in a day or so. It may well suggest that a change should be made to the funding of politics and that political subscriptions or donations made to parties will perhaps attract a tax concession or credit. That would mean that people who encourage others to get involved in politics would have a real incentive to do it because of the financial credit. However, if the commission does not bring forward such a recommendation, I think we shall be in even worse trouble.
	I hope that the Government take this issue seriously and let this forthcoming general election be the last one that is funded at the top by a few and only loosely rooted at the grass roots.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have only two points to make. The first is on terrorism and the other is on the law of murder.
	On terrorism, I marvel that we need yet more legislation given that we have not had a single incident of international terrorism in the United Kingdom since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Cobbold that we will get the worst of all worlds while the threat of terrorism will undoubtedly continue if we over-react to it.
	Putting that to one side, however, I am delighted that, if the rumour is correct, the Home Office has at last come around to the view that telephone intercepts should be admissible in evidence, at least in terrorist cases. I have pressed that view on the Home Office—and on anyone else who cared to listen—since 1995. I hope that this overdue reform will help in securing a trial for the 12 or 14 men currently detained without trial in Belmarsh prison.
	I also welcome the proposed offence of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. It is another of the recommendations that I made in my 1995 report. I tried very hard to get it into the Terrorism Act 2000, but it was resisted then by the Home Office and I failed. Again, I hope that that rumour is true.
	However, there is one rumour that I hope is definitely not true, and that is that some kinds of terrorist cases are to be tried without a jury. No doubt the Government will pray in aid the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland as a precedent, but the situation in Northern Ireland was entirely different. Diplock courts were necessary because of the sectarian divide so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Hylton. It was simply not possible to get a jury to hear cases—not only terrorist cases but also so-called scheduled cases—without fear of reprisals.
	Happily there is no sectarian divide in England and, therefore, there is no excuse for getting rid of the jury in terrorist cases—perhaps above all in terrorist cases a jury is necessary. So, if the rumour proves to be correct, that element of the Bill will, I suspect, have a rocky ride in this House. It is surprising that the Government have not learnt that lesson by now.
	The law of murder was not mentioned in the gracious Speech. However, it is very topical for reasons I shall explain. In August, the Law Commission published its report on partial defences to murder. It described the law of murder as a mess. I suspect that no one would disagree with that view. The Law Commission pointed out that the partial defences it was considering—namely, provocation and diminished responsibility—owed their origin to the fact that there is only one sentence for the crime of murder, and that is life imprisonment. It is the huge discrepancy between the sentence if one of those defences succeeds and if it does not succeed that has led to this branch of the law becoming seriously distorted.
	That was the Law Commission's view and, accordingly, it recommended that the Law Commission should be invited to review the law of murder as a whole and not only the partial defences. This should include reviewing the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment because, in the view of the Law Commission, it is impossible to consider the one without the other. However, a month ago, on 27 October, the Home Secretary announced in a press release that the review recommended by the Law Commission would be carried out not by the Law Commission, as the Law Commission wanted, but by the Home Office, and that its terms of reference would not include the sentence for murder.
	I shall make two comments on that. I do not suggest that the Home Office officials are incapable of carrying out a thorough review of the law of murder—of course not—but I do suggest that they are not the best people to do so. The review should be carried out by those with hands-on, practical experience of the law of murder, such as the Law Commission, although not necessarily the Law Commission. If the Law Commission was the right body to carry out the review it has just finished—as the Home Secretary must have thought in June 2003 as it was at his suggestion that it carried out the review—why has he changed his mind? Why is it not now the body, as has been suggested, to complete the review initiated originally by the Home Secretary? Why not let it finish the job, as it has asked to do?
	One searches for the reason but one is left with the thought that the Home Secretary may have been concerned in case the Law Commission came out with a strong recommendation that the mandatory sentence be abolished, in line with much of the evidence it has already received. I hope that when the Minister replies she will say why the Home Secretary did not accept the Law Commission's suggestion that the Law Commission itself should carry out the review.
	If the Home Secretary is determined to carry out the review in house, will he please consider appointing an outside chairman to carry out the work? Whether that is a judge, an academic or a senior QC matters not to me, but only if he does so will the review carry the weight and authority which is so important in this branch of the criminal law.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lords who have today made their maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, has been a great champion of trade union and women's rights. She will be able to speak to the House more potently than many of the need to maintain protections for those who have little power when confronted with the might of the state. She knows why trade unionists were traditionally at the forefront of the struggle for civil liberties. She also knows that justice for women cannot be secured by reducing justice for men. She will know better than anyone that a crude response to populist concerns is not a progressive move.
	My noble friend Lord Gould is a dear friend of many years. We have lively political arguments but I retain a warm affection for him because I know that his motivation is genuinely to improve the lot of the British people, particularly those who have little voice. He has never forgotten the unfairness that he saw in his early life—the inequality of the education system, particularly, which he experienced—and I have always admired his desire to create change. However, I think his romance with focus groups and with polling has led the Government into many unprincipled and misguided positions. I shall turn to that matter shortly.
	I wish to address the media debate that has been created—not surprisingly—in the light of the Home Office agenda announced in the Queen's Speech. The Government were congratulated on being wickedly clever by stealing Conservative clothing—it is now impossible for Michael Howard to find a sustainable set of policies to the right of Tony Blair—and the Government continue to ratchet up law and order issues in this Dutch auction between the main political parties.
	I regret what is taking place. It may be a source of celebration in some quarters that the Conservatives have been put on the back foot—that is always nice to watch—but I believe that progressive politics is not about oppressive policies. There is little progressive in the current menu. I welcome the corporate manslaughter legislation that is likely to come forth; I am very content that wiretap evidence should be placed before courts—I see it as a fundamental way of dealing with the problems of putting certain suspects before the courts—but we should be raising the alarm on some of the issues contained in the raft of legislation that is to come through the House. Showing whose truncheon is bigger in competitive displays of machismo has become standard Home Office fare. In the short-term, politicians may deceive themselves that this answers public anxieties about crime and terrorism. But the awful thing is that the erosion of principle and of established standards will become an indelible and shame-filled stain on our Government's record.
	The Government deny creating a climate of fear. They are unable to see that if a legislative programme is filled to the gills with legislation on identity cards, serious organised crime and police, drugs, the management of offenders, counter-terrorism and, again, on youth justice, the public are entitled to feel that things must be getting worse. After the 43 pieces of legislation on crime that have been passed in the past seven years, they are entitled to think that we are in a desperate plight if all this additional legislation is necessary.
	As with asylum and immigration, the Government's behaviour and rhetoric, while perhaps not intentional, feed into public fear and escalate panic and intolerance. Similarly, in the scandal of prison numbers, the Government cannot engage in double-speak—raging against offenders committing crimes but expecting the courts to use alternatives when, in turn, those will not satisfy the public expectations that wrongdoers should be punished in the age-old style. The hunger of the Daily Mail is unquenchable, and the Government should realise that.
	We are seeing quite an extraordinary shift to the right in the belief that it wins elections, but it is reshaping our lives irredeemably. The relationship between the citizen and the state is being resettled. Politicians speak regretfully about the public distrust of politicians but there is a mutuality in political engagement. The Government's distrust of citizens is manifest in many different ways: the erosion of juries; the introduction of ID cards; the duty to inform on others, which is contained within terrorism legislation; and the willingness to hand citizens over to other states without examination of evidence. These are extraordinary departures from traditional protections and are all based on suspicion of citizens.
	One of the most precious aspects of British life has been the freedom we enjoy, the respect for liberty. But in return for short-term gains, we are unpicking the mortar that holds together our social architecture.
	In his maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Gould said a number of things which were profoundly wrong. He said that crime is the most fundamental violation of a person's liberty. No—the state can victimise us much more effectively than any criminal. He also said that without security, liberty crumbles. Yes, we need security, but with too much security, liberty most decidedly crumbles. He told us that the more secure a nation is, the greater the chances and the opportunities for its citizens. No—a bridge is crossed when, seeking to create security, we create a society so risk-averse, so afraid, that opportunities are greatly reduced.
	I am a firm believer in the common law. Before anyone ever spoke about human rights, the common law essentially embodied everything that is contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because the common law is built on case law, and we believe in judicial discretion, although it is not very popular with certain Ministers, it has the flexibility to meet the justice of given situations, and is capable of evolving. The common law breathes, in the way that so many other systems do not. Its extraordinary adaptability has made it one of the great tools of vibrant trading nations. It is another great strength of the common law that markets thrive better under common law systems. If you look around, you will see the truth in that.
	Another great strength of the common law system is the jury, bringing the values of the community into the court room, deciding on the facts in cases and also protecting the judiciary from corruption where corruption is most likely to rear its head. We do not have attempts to corrupt or to assassinate judges because juries make the decisions. To play around with those facts is so short-sighted.
	The common law is built on a moral wisdom grounded in the experience of ages, acknowledging that governments can abuse power. When a person is on trial, the burden of proof must be on the state, and no one's liberty should be removed without evidence of the highest standard. Yet we are talking about taking trial by jury away from people facing charges of terrorism, the most serious of charges. We are talking about the possibility of using a civil order on a lower standard of proof as a pre-emptive strike against people who may have some sympathies with terrorism. We are talking about introducing ID cards when we know, in fact, that they will never be able to deal with terrorism. The Government are creating new paradigms of state power. They may be doing it without realising it, but that is what is happening, and we will pay the price.
	One of the reasons for these changes is undoubtedly globalisation. The huge shifts taking place in our world create an impetus to create hybrid systems of law. They also create fear in citizens around the world, so it is very easy to get citizens to write a blank cheque to governments in those circumstances. Cherry-picking other systems has been a favourite occupation of Ministers. If they do something in Sweden or France that works for them, why not try it here? But justice depends on very careful checks and balances, and it is easy to introduce legal transplants which do not work because our immune system is not attuned to the new initiative. Law is cultural, and it works best when it is grown in our own rich soil.
	In seeking to create transnational law, we are levelling down, rather than raising the standards of some of our neighbours, whose respect for the rule of law waxes and wanes. Yes, we need greater international co-operation to deal with international crime. Yes, we need new modalities for engaging with international terrorism. But we should never sacrifice the long-established standards of protection for which we, the British, are recognised.
	It is easy to persuade people that our liberty should be traded in the interests of security, but we always think it is only other people's liberty that will be traded—Arabs, Muslims, terrorists. But liberty is not divisible in that way. Terrorism laws cannot be vacuum-sealed. They leech into the system and poison the whole of the domestic law system. They affect the culture of policing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, demonstrated when describing the incident involving the man in Whitehall being stopped by over-zealous policemen, I am afraid that they can contaminate the justice system as a whole.
	When I speak to your Lordships today, I speak about my concern that, in this desire to win more elections—which I, too, want to see us doing—we are forgetting some things which are even more fundamental.

Lord Patten: My Lords, I greatly appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I agree with her absolutely on the common law. As a non-lawyer, I respect her judgment absolutely.
	I also greatly enjoyed the noble Baroness's speech because it is clear to me that I think more highly of the Home Secretary in his legal endeavours than she does. I greatly respect and like the Home Secretary, and I greatly regret the swirl and turmoil that is around his head at the moment. I do not agree with everything that the right honourable gentleman has done in the past; I do not agree with everything that he proposes in the gracious Speech. However, I think he has done a number of singularly important things. In the matter of public policy, I recognise in him a fellow social conservative under the skin—not a title, I guess, that he would like. However, I recognise that he and I are related in that way.
	Thus far and no further will I go regarding home affairs. I wish to concentrate, as a non-lawyer, on constitutional and legal affairs. On constitutional matters, I have said before to your Lordships and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that I abhor the lack of thought and strategy that has characterised the Government's approach to constitutional matters since 1997. There has been an endemic failure on the part of the Government to attempt to gain consent by prior consultation on manifesto commitments. That led to the making of public policy on the run. The best examples of that are the proposals brought in overnight to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor and introduce a Supreme Court. Perhaps I unwisely said that policy was made on the run because these days we know that public policy is made on the great sofa of state in No. 10 Downing Street with the Minister at one end and the Prime Minister at the other. I regret the way that it has been done. I regret the way that no attempt has been made to carry people until recently.
	There is an exquisitely fitting and poignant punishment for the Lord Chancellor, who should be our constitutional guardian and champion and who might have slipped into the Chamber this afternoon to listen to some of the points made about the constitution. It is extraordinary that he has not been here. However, if his post is maintained and he is forced to sit on the Woolsack, bewigged, for the rest of his service in this House, he might believe that that was a cruel and unnatural punishment. However, I do not think that even the European Court of Human Rights would come to his aid. He thoroughly deserves it.
	There are some constitutional Bills that did not bark in the gracious Speech; notably on the make-up of your Lordships' House and on the position of those among us whose service is so valued—those I think of as the hereditary classes. Perhaps it is the Government's intention to let the issue fade away and run out of steam, although I doubt that it will.
	However, there are some other things that might be allowed to fade away, such as the way in which we refer to each other in this Chamber. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who wishes so radically to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, has not mused publicly about the anachronism that seems to be coming down the track at us now that QCs are themselves about to fade away. Those with that title are referred to in this place as learned, which strikes me as being anachronistic these days. There are many very learned academics with doctorates and chairs in your Lordships' Chamber who are immensely learned, such as the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Peston. Nobody could be more learned than the late Conrad, Earl Russell, or my noble friend Lord Stewartby, that great numismatist and Fellow of the British Academy. All those people should have the title "learned", but I see my noble and learned friend rising spectrally in his place.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way, if only to tell him that I am not noble and learned. Of course I am delighted to be noble but I am only noble, even though I have the honour of holding the rank of Queen's Counsel. That is because the expression "noble and learned" applies only to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in your Lordships' House or former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, sitting Law Officers or former Law Officers. I apologise to my noble friend. I do not in any way wish to embarrass him by that, but I thought that it was important to interject.

Lord Patten: My Lords, having been in the other place, I am completely unembarrassable. I have heard the phrase "noble and learned" used about those who are QCs in the strict sense and nothing else in this place, doubtless wrongly. However, I take my tutorial properly.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend has a very real point. I would like to extend the use of the word learned. I would start in a more limited way to that which he suggested by a saying that Fellows of the Royal Society could usefully be described as learned.

Lord Patten: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right, but I sense that I should be about the business of stopping digging myself into a deeper hole. I remember Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary and I was a young Parliamentary Private Secretary, ushering me into his room—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about truncheons reminded me. The then Home Secretary used to sit behind a positive barricade and palisade of truncheons that were presented to him by police forces up and down the land. He advised new Ministers, "When in trouble, stop digging". I put away my spade.
	I wish that there had been some other measures in the gracious Speech to codify our constitutional statutes for starters, while to finish, the setting up of a free-standing constitutional commission might have been a good idea, answerable to both Houses of Parliament and free of ministerial patronage, to which all proposed constitutional reforms could be referred for discussion and refinement. That would have been a good thing.
	I certainly welcome the draft Civil Service legislation. I regard that as a constitutional matter because I have always regarded civil servants as our fifth estate—I hope that I will not be corrected by someone on our Front Bench on the number of estates that I should be counting. Our Civil Service needs a properly defined constitutional position and at long last it looks as though it may get it after the 150 years that have elapsed since the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which maintained that change,
	"can only be successfully done through the medium of an Act of Parliament".
	Some things are to be welcomed in the draft legislation which, as I said, I regard as a constitutional matter. The Government's proposal that the Civil Service Commission should get statutory independence is good. However, I understand from the draft legislation that the commission will not be able to carry out investigations into the workings of the Civil Service code or the code of conduct for special advisers, which is bad. My honourable friend Mr Oliver Heald is absolutely correct when he says that this Bill as drafted will not protect let alone bolster the impartiality of the Civil Service from government interference. Mr Heald is indeed just an honourable gentleman. He is not honourable and learned, even though, in the parlance of another place, QCs are given that title.
	I now turn to legal matters. I have no interests to declare, but I have two separate points to make if a Peer from the great unlearned in the law may be allowed to make them. My first point concerns judicial pensions, an issue that calls for the closest scrutiny. At a time when the position of so many in defined benefit schemes is in doubt and when others face a cap on the size of the pension pot that they have earned now starting in 2006, it is absolutely wrong to have a special case made for those who are, after all, members of a very secure and privileged class. They have tenure and that tenure was long ago stripped from parsons and taken away from academics. They often have the privilege of an automatic knighthood simply by virtue of the position that they reach.
	The sort of successful lawyers who I hope will be retained by and attracted to judicial office have probably had three decades of high earning pension-accumulating service under their belts. My honourable friend the Conservative pension spokesman in the other place, Mr David Willetts, is surely right to say that the issue should be dealt with by looking at salary levels. The announcement should not have been smuggled out on a website. It should have been in the Queen's Speech. Trying to smuggle things out was one of those things that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, used to call a spiffing wheeze, but this spiffing wheeze has gone badly wrong.
	Lastly, there is another legal issue that was sparked off by a junior Minister in the self-same Department for Constitutional Affairs, Mr David Lammy. He has been much and accurately reported as telling off City law firms for allegedly discriminating in favour of Oxbridge—or Camford as I prefer to think of those twins. Those places are now Labour's favourite targets after fox hunters and supporters of fox hunting have been legislated against—supporters such as the noble Lord, Lord Livesey of Talgarth, who speaks next—and had their comeuppance. I have no interest at all to declare on this issue save as a user, from time to time, of the services of those law firms pursuant to my declared interests in the City of London in the world of investment.
	The City of London's law firms are generally excellent. They contribute enormously to the strength and reputation of the City of London by which I mean not only the historic city, but Canary Wharf, midtown and the West End which is where some of these firms have now moved. They add to the innovative zip and vim of our most successful global financial centre, here in London.
	Being among the best, those law firms want to attract the best, not just from Oxbridge or Camford but from all good universities—and I am advised that there are many excellent universities with law schools. To take Cambridge as an example, that university has been excoriated by the Minister, but it has recently been judged the third best university in the known world. It is now taking some 60 per cent of its undergraduates on their merits from state schools—and quite right, too. They are there not by privilege but because they are bright, hard-working and aspirational.
	What is the point of encouraging state school pupils to aim for Oxbridge and aspire to Camford, but then to follow on with exhortatory advice to City law firms to discriminate against exactly those state school students who have done so well and have graduated with such distinction? I believe that Mr Lammy is guilty of a bit of muddled thinking in that matter, and I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, has recently joined the department. She may introduce a bit of clarity into the thinking of that department, which is often sorely needed.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I hasten to say that I, too, have no direct interest in the legal system, particularly after some aspects of that speech, although I enjoyed very much what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, had to say on a number of subjects.
	Normally, I speak on agriculture and rural affairs, but today I wish to speak on the constitution, as it affects Wales. Were I to be speaking on agriculture today, I would most certainly be discussing the impact of supermarkets on farm gate prices—now hardly able to sustain a small or even medium-sized family farm. I would also have mentioned the inability of dairy farms to recoup a fair price for price in the market place. On this occasion, I shall focus on the situation relating to my home nation of Wales, especially to its constitutional relationship with Parliament and government here at Westminster.
	Of the Wales Bills in the Queen's Speech, one relates to transport in Wales—the Transport (Wales) Bill, which is fundamental for sustainable transport, which I welcome. There is also a Bill that will make public services more effective in Wales and which I also welcome. There is, in addition, a Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, which will sort out some of the problems that we have had in that sector in Wales, and combines them all under one office. That is clearly a good thing. But we are contending, too, with an education Bill, which is an England and Wales Bill and which has 40 Welsh clauses in it. When one actually examines it in detail, 33 of those clauses are re-enactments of existing legislation, and only seven relate directly to Wales.
	We are having to go along with those less than satisfactory situations because we have no primary legislative powers in Wales as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998. I have always believed in the idea of a Parliament for Wales, and I should have preferred to have seen in the Queen's Speech measures to establish a Welsh Parliament. I have been working very strongly to try to get more powers for government in Wales, for a very long time indeed. After the 1979 referendum campaign, which was not a success, we had to struggle through the 1980s and most of the 1990s, calling for constitutional convention for Wales. I was involved, as the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the other place, in putting in place the Government of Wales Act 1998. It was not an Act of my choice but a compromise that came out of different views held within the Labour Party, but we felt at the time that it was better than nothing.
	Now we have the Richard commission report, made earlier this year. It is an excellent report—and in fact it is the equivalent of a constitutional convention of Wales, because it was widely canvassed throughout Wales at the time. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the very effective report that he and his committee produced. But why has reference not appeared to it in this Queen's Speech? I hope that it will in the next one.
	The responses to the Richard commission report have been somewhat diverse. Plaid Cymru welcomed it but still wants independence. The Conservatives want a four-way referendum, asking whether to maintain the status quo, accept the Richard commission suggestions, aim for independence or abolish the Assembly altogether. That seems to be stepping back from the brink and not being prepared even to make even a simple decision on which way they wish to jump.
	The Labour Government in the Assembly have been bedevilled by the attitude of most Labour MPs at Westminster, many of whom—though not all—do not want primary legislative powers devolved, as they mistakenly assume that there will be too much loss of their own powers. Their fears may be allayed by the Sewel convention—and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is present in the House this evening and will speak later. That was an agenda put forward for the Scottish Parliament, which has resulted in the joint working on some primary legislation between the Scottish Parliament and the legislators here in Westminster. We would wish to have that arrangement for Wales.
	It might allay the fears of some Labour MPs that they would lose a lot of power to know that in Scotland there has been more co-operation between Scottish MPs and Members of the Scottish Parliament on jointly working on primary legislation. Unfortunately, at present, some Labour MPs do not want to know about all that—but it is clearly the way ahead. In the face of such negativity, the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has stepped back from support for primary legislative powers into a less than halfway house position, as contained in chapter 13.2 of the Richard commission recommendations. One of the first statements of that is that there will be no amendment to the Government of Wales Act 1998. I need go on no further—but noble Lords can read into that the problems that would be created by taking that position.
	The position taken by my party is that we welcome the Richard commission report in its entirety. However, there are some issues surrounding legal structures in Wales which are important. When one thinks of the Constitution Bill contained in the Queen's Speech, references to which have already been made this evening, one would wish to know where Wales stands in this matter. It is an England and Wales Bill. Certainly in the legal profession in Wales, there is a wish to devolve more legal powers, now that Wales has an Assembly. We are seeing great reforms here in Westminster, but we shall still be under the department with regard to the constitution.
	Clearly, there is a very strong case for devolving primary legislative powers to Wales. Indeed, there has been a gradual evolution in that regard, as time has gone on, particularly in agriculture and transport. But we have no input into broadcasting in Wales, or into our relations with the European Union, which we believe is extremely important, as our GDP is some 20 per cent less than it is in England, for example. We have a lot of catching up to do. The Government of Wales Act 1998 was put into practice, and the Assembly was created.
	A future Queen's Speech must come forward with details, as produced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his report. That would give the Assembly primary legislative powers, change the system of voting and increase the numbers in the Assembly very modestly—because the scrutiny powers of the Assembly would be vastly increased in considering primary legislative Bills. Indeed, it should be able to create Acts of Parliament. That must come before long.
	What Wales needs now—after a referendum following the general election, in the new Queen's Speech—is an acceptance in full of the Richard Commission recommendations, following their validation, if necessary, in a referendum; a Wales Bill that will enact the Richard commission recommendations; and a timetable for reform that follows the Richard Commission report. It is a long-term matter that will not be resolved until about 2010, with final enactment probably not until 2013. It will take quite a while.
	The timetable for reform of the National Assembly for Wales must follow the proposals of the Richard commission. I hope and expect that such a constructive attitude will be taken in the next Queen's Speech. The legislative mechanisms of Wales badly need to be sorted out in a democratic way as that will enable far more effective government for Wales. We are currently hung in a halfway house.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we have been having a fascinating debate. Perhaps the highlight was the insight provided when we heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gould, and the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Their speeches revealed to us something of the struggle that must go on continually within the current Labour Party. If I had to appoint someone to assist my own party with its future manifesto, I think that I would probably come down on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I felt closer to her speech than to that of the noble Lord, although both were, of course, excellent speeches.
	Those who made up the speakers' list for this debate seem to have grouped together those of us who seemed to them to come from the Celtic fringes, in the hope that everyone else could go and take a little light refreshment and they could man their Front Bench accordingly. That is very disappointing to me because I did not intend to talk about Scotland at all. I am merely talking to a rather empty House.
	In the Queen's Speech, the Government say:
	"My Government will continue to modernise . . . the institutions of our country".
	My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has asked the Government to clarify a little what they mean by "modernising". We look forward to hearing the answer to that question.
	I should like to remind your Lordships and the Government of the unintended effect at present of some of the Government's recent modernisations, and to ask the Minister if she can tell us whether the Government, should they be re-elected, are in the business of learning lessons for future modernisations from what they have just done.
	Perhaps I may explain. The first example is hunting: all those parliamentary hours spent on the ban, and then the sledgehammer of the Parliament Act to force it into law. And now what? In fact, the pollsters tell us that only 50 per cent of the population wanted a ban in any case. Now that it is law, 70 per cent—seven in 10 of those questioned—do not want the police to enforce the Act. They do not want the law enforced.
	The future remains to be seen. A ban has existed in Scotland for a while. Last week and this week, two huntsmen have been appearing in court on charges of alleged offences under the Scots' hunting ban. In at least one of those cases a longstanding hunt member is cited to appear as a witness for the prosecution against her own hunt.
	What have the Government done? They have destroyed a longstanding institution—a hobby, a recreation, a sport, even a habit and tradition that binds communities together. In its place they have created division and cynicism. What does that do for people in local areas and indeed for the local police appointed to serve them?
	That is hunting. Then, there is the issue of regional assemblies and local government. How often the Government seem to forget local government's importance as a familiar local institution. Local government gives local communities a focal point—people to choose, criticise and influence. It holds the community together, while they complain about it, in all sorts of ways.
	The Government wanted elected regional assemblies, and they were egged on in that by the Liberal Democrats, as we have heard. They wanted something to counterbalance the unfairness for England of the lopsided devolution to the other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it turned out that the regions that they proposed and the all-postal voting that they fancied was seen locally as not only unnecessary, but damaging to the local government that already existed. The local population was asked what they thought and they said a polite, "Thank you very much; we will keep local government as it is". The lopsided devolution remains, including that which goes with it: the West Lothian question and the whole problem of how votes are to be in Parliament. I wonder whether the Government have learnt a lesson from that.
	Then, there is the attack on our independent world-class universities—the limiting of the fees that they can charge their students and the oversight of student admissions by a regulator. The effect of that so far is that our most prestigious institutions are forced to reduce their intake of home students and increase the number of overseas students. That is hardly what the Government intended. I think that the Minister, from her previous incarnation, would agree.
	Then, there is the Army and its need for more flexible deployment. The Government seem to have forgotten that some regiments are indeed local institutions, with hugely popular veterans' associations and clubs, as well as being local recruiting grounds. Anyone who has visited the annual Tattoo at Edinburgh Castle—four weeks' sell-out every year, and based mainly on the history, traditions and music making of Scots regiments—could have told the Government the outrage that that suggestion would cause in Scotland. That is, first, not understood; secondly, it is extremely annoying to everyone.
	Hunting, lopsided devolution, the universities, and the reorganising of regiments are all examples of the Government's current problems—quite big problems—all caused by failure to recognise that institutions often have deep roots. Modernising and light-heartedly destroying, damaging or downgrading those institutions can have unexpected consequences for the soil in which they grow. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to learn lessons from those present examples for their plans for the future?

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I should like to concentrate in my contribution on matters relating to children in trouble with the law and to the prospect of draft legislation following the Government's paper Youth Justice—The Next Steps. I should like to review very briefly how we got to where we are today and what we can hope the new legislation on youth justice will bring.
	The thought of new legislation may raise the spirits of all those working with children and young people in trouble with the law—the many dedicated social workers, police officers and staff of youth offending teams who will have watched with some despair the increasing numbers of children and young people locked up, the emphasis on punishment rather than care and protection for some of the most damaged children in our country and the relentless shift away from a system based on knowledge and evidence. The many people working in the system want to see children protected and safeguarded from harm. They also want a system that works, in that it saves children, wherever possible, from an adulthood spent in Her Majesty's prisons having committed some serious crimes, or from behaving violently to their own families in turn, thus creating another generation of young people who see violence as the solution.
	Many people working with children and teenagers who commit crime are therefore dismayed by much that has happened in policy in recent years, starting perhaps with the decision by the Government in July 1997 to set up more privately managed secure institutions where convicted children would be sent from the courts as punishment. It was not only the decision to set up those institutions that caused dismay, but the decision about their nature. The companies asked to provide them were not companies providing services in education, health or childcare, but companies providing security guards, escorting prisoners and providing adult custodial services.
	I make no point about whether the companies should be commercial; I am commenting on the vision of those who set the institutions up. They did not think, "The issue here is children. We are talking of children as young as 12, so let us look towards those who know about childcare, health and education." The people who set up the institutions presumably thought, "These are bad children, so we need to find private contractors with the knowledge of how to run places of punishment". That decision enshrined a certain approach and set a tone. Since then, a number of developments have reinforced that decision, and made us see that the youth justice system is ripe for some profound change.
	In July 2000, the number of children locked up reached nearly 3,000. On 24 March 2002, Joseph Scholes, aged 16 years and one month, hanged himself in his cell in Stoke Heath young offender institution. In October 2002, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the UK Government to integrate into their youth justice system the provisions and principles of the convention, because it found a number of failings. It expressed concern about changes since its last report, such as those aged between 12 and 14 being deprived of their liberty, children being detained for lesser offences at a younger age, longer sentences, bad conditions and lack of protection in the institutions of detention.
	In June 2003, the Joint Committee on Human Rights called on the Government to respond to the UN report, and to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, reduce the use of custody and remove those under 18 from Prison Service custody to an organisation,
	"more fully imbued with a culture of respect for children's rights".
	In September 2003, the Government replied to the Joint Committee, declining to accept its recommendations, pointing out that:
	"Children in custody are not just children",
	and maintaining that "a substantial number" of children—probably between 2,000 and 3,000—need to be locked up at any time. In November 2003, the Joint Committee on Human Rights responded to that reply by firmly restating its earlier recommendations.
	On 1 April 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, initiated a debate in this House where he called for a public inquiry into the death of Joseph Scholes. So far as I know, that has not yet been agreed to. On 19 April 2004, Gareth Myatt, aged 15, died while being restrained by staff at Rainsbrook secure training centre. On 7 June 2004, a Written Answer in the other place made it clear that Joseph Scholes was by no means the only very high risk young person sent into custody. We learnt that, in 2003-04, 3,337 children assessed as vulnerable were remanded or sentenced to Prison Service custody.
	In August 2004, Adam Rickwood was found dead in his room at Hassockfield secure training centre. He had killed himself. He was 14 years old. On 7 September, the Howard League for Penal Reform announced an inquiry into physical restraint, strip searches and segregation in children's prisons, to be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Announcing the inquiry, the Howard League released figures which showed that restraint techniques had been used since 1999 in the three secure training centres in England 11,593 times. That is for a population in those centres at any time of 190 children.
	On 16 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in reply to a Written Question from me said that in the month preceding 16 November—four weeks—83 children and young people under 18 had been taken into custody for breach of an anti-social behaviour order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for her excellent maiden speech, which reflected her lifetime fighting for the rights of the underdog. I look forward very much to further debate with her in this House about anti-social behaviour orders and whether they are the solution to the havoc caused by the disturbed children of dysfunctional families.
	We must be very grateful that the new youth justice Bill will give us an opportunity to look again at these matters, and to do better. It is also a chance to integrate into the legislative framework some of the body of knowledge about children who commit crimes that has developed over decades. It is based on research and experience, and is accepted by the world community. It has two elements. One is human rights law about protecting the vulnerable, and the other is the knowledge of specialists on children and adolescents about how to guide them to grow up well socialised and able to lead useful and happy lives.
	That knowledge reinforces the human rights principles. It says that children who break the law in serious ways are children in trouble. Punishment does not solve the problem. Their lives have been punishment enough already. The outstanding work of Camila Batmangheldjh, who set up and runs the organisation Kids Company, shows us that. I hope that the draft legislation that will come before us will seriously help to reduce the use of custody. Rates of child imprisonment have almost doubled over the past decade, at a period when recorded crime by children has been going down.
	According to the 40th report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Youth Justice Board spent about £283 million—72 per cent of its budget—on 7 per cent of the young people with whom it works, the 7 per cent who go into custody. The Audit Commission's report, Youth Justice 2004, said that custody was expensive and ineffective, and that eight out of 10 of those locked up were reconvicted. I hope that the new measures will serve to reduce the number of minor offences coming to court, a point also raised by the Audit Commission.
	I particularly hope that the new legislation will address the critical situation of children assessed as vulnerable being placed in Prison Service custody by bringing the sentencing courts and the Youth Justice Board into the safeguarding framework. The Government resisted those changes to the Children Act, but the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—we are fortunate that she will reply to the debate today—provided assurances that the matter was being looked at by the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills. The proposed youth justice Bill provides the opportunity to move forward on that. I hope that she can tell us this evening that that at least will be done, so that some good, however little, will have come from the deaths of Joseph Scholes and Adam Rickwood.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am happy to recount that I have been abolished again. I may have found a way around my abolition as a hereditary Peer in November 1999 by returning here in April 2000, but yesterday I was abolished by my honourable Scottish friends, as a feudal superior, under our Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000. I am not sure how to get around that one or, indeed, if I want to.
	I am glad that I shall be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I hope that he will comment on the recent, in my view, over-use of the convention that bears his name. There are two concerns. One is the unanticipated frequency of use and the second is that the opposition parties in Scotland do not have any real chance to debate the content of a Bill that is to be "Sewelled"—I apologise for that new verb. A Sewel motion always comes from the executive, which has already deliberated on the matter—in private, presumably.
	The House will not be surprised to hear that I regret the lack of any mention of strategic direction for constitutional development in Scotland. The Minister smiles, which I recognise with sadness—although that smile is nice. Scotland is, at present, on its way and re-finding its feet, but, once again, it will be necessary for further development so that we can see the true flourishing of the Scottish political state—which is impossible at present, due to its incorporation into the political United Kingdom. But that is not to say that I am ungrateful for the promised devolution of the railway network to the Scottish Parliament. A year ago, I set devolution of the whole railway as my one stated tangible political aim for the Session. Although the Treasury Bench turned its eyes to heaven at that moment, it has subsequently seen the light or, perhaps, a signal at green.
	Praise for transport measures does not end there. I approve of the Crossrail proposals, as they will benefit, among others, Scottish rail travellers who will seek to travel on by rail and air. However, I cannot say that the alleged proposal to close 57 English railway lines would benefit rail travellers, Scottish or otherwise. So here there is substantial policy divergence—the reopening of railways in Scotland and their closure in England. Leaving those transport issues aside—yes, I also approve of the tougher stance on mobile phones—my complaint is this: that there is no statement in the gracious Speech about the constitutional direction for Scotland.
	I also regret that the EU constitution referendum process will be flawed, at least in my dreams, in that Scotland is improperly described as a region, not as a nation. I certainly believe that at least the referendum should officially be counted separately in Scotland and that the result in Scotland should be recognised officially. I concede that I was impressed to hear this morning on the radio that the EU is planning to relate to the Scottish Parliament in a more serious and structured manner and that the EU will do the same with the Catalan parliament. The article in the constitution which allows 1 million people to petition for EU membership is worthy of further study.
	In my everyday experience, there are people in Scotland who wish to know where the re-establishment of a political state will end. At present, we are in an uncomfortable half-way house. One option is to revert to direct rule, putting the half-awake/half-asleep state back to bed, and another is to learn to live with devolution and the subsidy which goes with it. Ultimately, that subsidy is patronising to a national community.
	Then there is my noble friend's proposal for a properly constituted federation. Regrettably, a federal solution is complicated, you cannot work up any passion for it and it does not resolve the problem of England being far larger than anywhere else—by 10 to one in Scotland's case—and thus, the dominating element of a federation. The ultimate solutions are for Scotland to take back its sovereignty, repealing all the Scotland Act schedules which reserve legislation to Westminster. The choice would then have to be made over whether to seek dominion status, to preserve the British social union or whether to go for a republic. I favour a dominion, because I do not want bitterness to determine the outcome. Perhaps I may project further—the decision would have to be made regarding whether Scotland should remain in the EU and in NATO. I favour doing so in both cases, but I know that the Scottish National Party wishes to leave NATO.
	This is my point—do not wait for bitterness to provoke a distorted outcome. Let the Department for Constitutional Affairs announce how a referendum on Scottish autonomy can be acquired by citizens and let us move away from the idea that only political parties can procure a referendum. It is impossible to determine the desire for greater autonomy in Scotland from the votes cast for political parties which have complex manifestos. The United Kingdom Government certainly believe in greater autonomy for constituent parts of the Union—witness the planned celebration next year in this building to mark the 1905 independence referendum about whether Norway should depart from its union with Sweden.
	In conclusion, the Scottish Parliament has been enjoying its visitors in the past five weeks. My right honourable Scottish friend George Reid, who happens to be my MSP and is the Presiding Officer, told a dinner in Alloa Tower last Friday that 137,000 people had visited the parliament in the past five weeks and that the authorities there were having considerable problems coping with those very welcome visitors. The building is beginning to deliver for Scotland and, in retrospect, its cost represents only half of 1 per cent of five years' worth of block grant.
	More must be heard about the future for Scotland. It must stop being submerged within the United Kingdom. The transition must be planned for now—and in a spirit of friendship.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, perhaps I may say that I do not mind speaking to an empty House, or an almost empty House, as I became quite used to that during those long nights in 1998, when the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my great friend and political opponent the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and I used to bang on until eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock, one o'clock and two o'clock night after night on the Scotland Bill. There was one occasion when we actually stopped at about eight o'clock, because, as many noble Lords will know, the three passions of the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish were his family, his politics and his fishing. He had the opportunity of fishing one of the northern rivers and had to catch the sleeper train; so we stopped at eight o'clock, which was most unusual. The first thing that he did when he returned was to berate the Government Front Bench for cutting short time on discussion of the Bill. But that was John Mackay.
	It is now a full five years and more since the passing of the Scotland Act and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Since then I have just about resisted all temptation to comment on the success, or otherwise, of devolution. But five years on, and in the context of the gracious Speech, it is about time for me to offer a few comments and perhaps a few suggestions.
	To my mind, the success of devolution is subject to two tests. Does it strengthen the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom while, at the same time, putting in place institutions that can create Scottish solutions to Scottish problems against Scottish defined priorities? When judged against those two tests, I believe that devolution has been an undoubted success. I have always been a devolutionist because I am a unionist.
	The devolution settlement established the Scottish Parliament that has fulfilled the desire of the people of Scotland for constitutional change and greater control over their own affairs. The nationalists have been seen off; independence as a political issue has retreated; and the present leader of the Scottish National Party is engaged in some kind of political merry-go-round, first starting in Westminster, then going to Holyrood, then returning to Westminster, and now apparently—perhaps finally; perhaps not—wanting to go back to Holyrood. Confusion worst confounded and, so far as I am concerned, the more the better.
	At the same time, over a number of policy areas the Parliament has produced distinctive Scottish policies: land reform, including the abolition of feudalism, and care for the elderly, although we have to admit that work still needs to be done on the future of the NHS and health service delivery in Scotland.
	But it is perhaps now time to review and possibly modify some of the elements of devolution. I was never entirely convinced that there was a particularly strong case for continuing with the office of Secretary of State for Scotland once devolution was in place. So long as it does not go beyond the dozen or so people here, I can say that I advocated abolition on day one of devolution, but that did not find favour at the time. In fact, it would have brought forward the end of my career as a Minister by two months and so there would have been additional advantages.
	The initial case for a Secretary of State for Scotland was based on the contribution that a person in such office could make to ensuring that the transition to devolution took place smoothly and that the friction between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament—and, perhaps more importantly, the friction between a UK executive and a new Scottish Executive—could be eased. The Parliament and the Executive have not only become established but they have matured, and I wonder to what extent there remains a real job of work to be done by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	Even in a UK framework, Scottish institutions and Scottish representatives can look after and promote Scottish interests without the presence of the Secretary of State. That does not mean, of course, that intergovernmental relations should be neglected. Indeed, on the contrary, as devolved government strengthens in Wales—I very much welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—and in Northern Ireland, as I am sure it will, it will become more important to ensure that effective ministerial arrangements are in place to manage those intergovernmental relations. It is simply that I do not think it is likely to be best done through the present model of territorial Secretaries of State.
	I want to say a few words—partly in response to the noble Earl—about one aspect of devolution that has been the subject of recurrent comment in Scotland: Sewel Motions. The Sewel convention simply states the desired working arrangement between a sovereign Westminster Parliament and the devolved Scottish Parliament so that it is accepted that Westminster would not normally legislate in a devolved area except with the approval of the Scottish Parliament. The passing of a Sewel Motion is the means by which the Scottish Parliament invites the Westminster Parliament to legislate in a devolved area. Sewel Motions are at the interface of the relationship between the two Parliaments—that is the point that must be underlined.
	I understand that, thus far, a Sewel Motion has been adopted on slightly more than 50 occasions. The question is: is that more than we anticipated and is it too many? The honest answer is that we did not know. We were looking into a darkened room. We did not know how the arrangements would work in practice. To those who argue that the use of a Sewel Motion inevitably erodes devolution, I say that I do not agree. The basis of the devolved settlement is there, and it is a matter of convenience and judgment when and how often a Sewel Motion is moved. I think that such Motions provide a commonsense way for the Scottish Parliament to use a Westminster route for legislation when it does not consider that there is merit for separate legislation in Scotland, where the issue is basically technical and raises no controversial policy issues, or where, indeed, if the same legislative framework were not in place north and south of the Border, a major loophole or a significant back door would be opened. Clearly, that is relevant when we come to the subject of national security. So, on the whole, I think that the Motions have been used appropriately.
	However, I do have a concern, which is that I believe there is an understandable temptation in Scotland to use the Westminster route for legislation that might be controversial and raise sensitive presentational problems. Arguably, the use of a Sewel Motion for the Civil Partnership Bill came close to falling into this category.
	A parliament is nothing unless it allows the different voices of the nation to be heard, no matter how uncomfortable that may be to the executive or those in charge of a parliamentary programme. A Sewel Motion should not be used as a means of securing political convenience by avoiding controversy.
	The difficulty with Sewel Motions is not the number of times that they are used but the inability of the Scottish Parliament to have anything but a perfunctory involvement in the process. I think that the noble Earl also made that point. Although Sewel Motions mediate the relationship between the Parliaments, they are managed almost entirely by the two Executives. It is the Executive that sets in train the whole process and it is the Executive that decides whether a Bill has been so amended during its passage at Westminster that it goes beyond the terms of the original Motion.
	There is a case for radical review of how Sewel Motions operate. I believe it would be preferable if the Parliament established a committee that could comment on the appropriateness of using the Westminster route for a particular piece of legislation. It could then monitor the progress of the Bill through its parliamentary stages at Westminster and reach a view on whether the final outcome delivered the original intention. The decision on whether the legislation should apply to Scotland—this would be a major change in the process—would be taken when the final version of the Bill was before Parliament. That would put Parliament at the heart of the process which is, after all, about the relationship between the two Parliaments but which has rather unintentionally been hijacked by the Executive.
	I want to say a few words about the somewhat arcane subject of primary purpose and ancillary effect. I do so because I believe that the potential to cause difficulty and confusion here is greater than would ever be the case with Sewel Motions. The Scotland Act established two classes of legislation: reserved and non-reserved—non-reserved being devolved. A judgment must be reached on whether legislation deals with a reserved or a devolved subject. The only trouble is that legislation does not necessarily fall into watertight compartments.
	Building on the so-called "pith and substance" approach, the Scotland Act, together with comments made at the time—I refer noble Lords to Hansard, 28 July 1998, col. 1392—put in place what I suppose could be called the "primary purpose and ancillary effects" approach. That is of particular relevance to the Government's programme. I am aware that there are those in Scotland who claim, for example, that non-jury trials for some terrorist offences could be resisted in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for the criminal justice system. My view is that that would not be the case because the primary purpose would be related to national security, which clearly is reserved.
	Perhaps I may pose another issue that may be more hypothetical, but I suspect may come towards us at some time in the future. If a decision were taken by a United Kingdom government to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland because of their strategic energy responsibilities, the Scottish Parliament, in my view, could not use its planning powers to stand in the way. I would be interested to learn whether the Government's present view of the effect of primary purpose and ancillary effect is the same as mine and has remained the same since 1998.
	My last point is a brief one. Just in case there should be an opportunity to amend the Scotland Act, will the Government consider giving the First Minister in Scotland powers to appoint Ministers who are not Members of the Parliament? That is a common provision among small legislatures and the Scottish Parliament is a relatively small legislature. Over the past five years the Executive has had a somewhat rapid rate of ministerial turnover, with some now appearing as retreads. That is not always to be regretted, but it is not a sound common practice.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I have noted the remarks of the previous two noble Lords on devolution in Scotland. I want to mention some problems that we have in Northern Ireland which have been brought about by the somewhat unusual political settlement. It is full of good intentions, but from time to time it exposes itself as not being as successful as it might be. I take what I am about to say rather seriously; it is not said lightly. I have provided notice of it to the appropriate Minister.
	It is with some regret that I turn to a serious subject that I must bring up in your Lordships' House, because I have tried other methods to highlight the problem to no effect. I refer to the state of affairs in the cross-border body called Waterways Ireland. That agency is in charge of developing and maintaining most of the waterways throughout the island of Ireland. Over the past few months I have come to know quite a lot about the body and I have formed a very high opinion of many members of its staff, of all ranks, on both sides of the border. I am impressed by their quality, understanding and commitment. However, the circumstances in which they operate are dreadful to say the least. Cronyism, bullying and bad management abound. I shall give a few examples.
	First, on cronyism, the body's chief executive, John Martin, was told by the sponsoring departments on 2 April 2001 that, as a result of an agreement with the Irish Municipal Public and Civil Trade Union of the 30 March of that year and contained in a letter to the union's secretary general, the directors' posts must be filled by open competition. But in the case of the director of marketing and communications, a post which all of the staff and observers to whom I have talked think was specially created for a friend of John Martin, Mr Martin Dennany, there was no competition. The rules of employment in Northern Ireland were ignored to enable Mr Dennany to obtain the post.
	Worse, Mr Martin then reported to the North-South Ministerial Council on 26 June 2002 that the post was filled by open competition. In turn, that was reported to the Northern Ireland Assembly by local Minister Michael McGimpsey on 10 September 2002. I have since been informed in a Written Answer in your Lordships' House that the statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly was incorrect. That point has rightly annoyed former Minister McGimpsey who said in response in the Belfast Telegraph that if he were still the Minister he would be throwing furniture about, and that heads must roll and the posts re-advertised.
	Mr Dennany is a well known figure in the Irish political establishment and has previously worked in the Republic's Prime Minister's office. Many believe that it was upon political direction that the post was filled. The chief executive, John Martin, who gave the post to Mr Dennany, claims that the political direction means that he is above the law. That may be a practice in the Republic but the post is in a part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—and is subject, rightly, to strict employment law. The post is also part funded by HMG.
	That is only one example of cronyism—there are more. Perhaps one worth noting is that of the director of operations—the number two position. John Martin is accused by my informants of drawing up a job description to suit a Mr Brian D'Arcy and of coaching him for the job. Martin proceeded to chair the panel of appointment and, of course, Mr D'Arcy was selected—again a political appointment.
	The worst charge is yet to come; that of staff bullying. The body is paralysed by a culture of alleged bullying and harassment by the chief executive and his senior circle. Allegations by almost 30 staff of all grades up to director level were made in 2001 to the sponsoring departments. Only after considerable pressure did the departments move by setting up an investigation, but that investigation has been carefully limited in its remit and thus will more than likely miss the point. What is required is a full investigation into all these serious allegations. The stories that I have been told are well documented and horrible in the extreme.
	The net effect of all these serious management issues is that Waterways Ireland is dysfunctional. The many excellent staff are not encouraged to do their jobs. There are many results of that, but the most serious for the economy of Northern Ireland is occurring in Upper Lough Erne. In Fermanagh, the waterway system and the two large loughs are the main focus of tourism. Many visit the area from all over the world and delight in the boating, sailing, fishing and so on, on Lough Erne. As it currently stands, without quick action the tourism trade next year will be badly damaged by Waterways Ireland's failure to tackle the green weed problem this year. I have received representations from those in the area who are commercially interested in tourism and who are most concerned.
	Unless Waterways Ireland takes its responsibility seriously and destroys or cuts the green weeds, there will be no boating next year. Waterways Ireland refuses to undertake that task. Yet as in the case of many other issues that is its duty. Each year, its budget is not spent and millions are returned to the respective governments, so there is not a lack of funding. Also all staff posts are still not filled even after five years of existence. The total management picture is one of failure and incompetence. The spending of money is mismanaged.
	I am calling for the suspension of chief executive John Martin until a full investigation into the many allegations of bullying, cronyism and mismanagement has taken place and reported upon. I also call on the Government to ensure that there is no question of the director of corporate services being removed from his post in the meantime. I urge movement quickly before key people leave the organisation and the problem grows.
	I should point out that I shall return again and again to this topic until the many who keep me informed and I are satisfied. I am known to be mono-minded. The Northern Ireland department to whom Waterways Ireland reports is the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. By anyone's book, those are delightful areas to administer, raising the morale of people in Northern Ireland, putting back self-confidence and developing a feel-good factor in which political arrangements can be supported.
	The truth is different. Over the past two years, the department has run out of control. Sad to say, it responds only to the Irish Government's bidding and that is usually to help some disguised encroachment by Dublin. They fought every positive idea that the language body had when I was the co-chairman. There was no support, no consultation and no offer of help in achieving targets. We were left with the idea that the department simply did not want us to do anything. Now DCAL has turned its attention to dismantling one of its greatest successes, the Northern Ireland Events company. That company has funded 108 events since 2002 alone at a cost of just over £5 million and has generated benefits in excess of £31 million for the Province. It has provided good economic sense as well as morale and confidence. Now DCAL has slashed the company's budget to ribbons without consultation and without explanation.
	Little support ever came to the company. DCAL officials attended only two of the 108 events to see how successful or otherwise their sponsored company was. All attempts to raise the matter with the Minister have been blocked with no consultation or support. It all sounds too familiar to me.
	I ask as a matter of urgency that the role of DCAL is examined and that proposals are put in place to make the department an instrument for good, and not—as now—an organ of despair.
	I am not opposed to cross-border bodies because the island of Ireland is small. However, I am not prepared to put up with standards of governance which are not common to any part of the United Kingdom being brought into the United Kingdom; and I am not prepared to be disadvantaged by a political settlement that makes the administration of Northern Ireland worse than before.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like other noble Lords I begin by congratulating and welcoming our maiden speakers—the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and the noble Lord, Lord Gould. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her elegant introduction to today's debate.
	As we all know this is the moment in the parliamentary year when pithy quotes about the Government's legislative programme drip from the pens of the commentators. We are spoilt for choice. I am especially drawn to that of Anatole Kaletsky in the Times last week, describing it as,
	"a ragbag of 'eye-catching initiatives' and fidgety nanny-state measures—in many cases deliberately confounding the paranoia of Mr Blair's War on Terror with the public's justified anger about a breakdown of law and civility on Britain's streets".
	Against that background it will not surprise your Lordships if I single out the identity cards Bill as my starting point. To my mind the most significant comment made so far about that is to be found in the summary of the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on its draft. It states:
	"We conclude that objections of principle should not be lightly dismissed and that the Government's proposed scheme would represent a significant change in the relationship between state and individual in this country".
	Both arms of this statement are exceedingly important. First, it implies that the Government are under an inescapable obligation to take seriously the concerns and anxieties of those of a lot more libertarian frame of mind than the Home Secretary. On current evidence—not least the recent remarks of the leader of another place—this does not look at all likely.
	Secondly, the identification of,
	"a significant change in the relationship between state and individual"—
	a matter spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—is manifestly accurate. I do not dispute that the draft Bill has been amended. Nor do I in any way underestimate either the nature or the extent of the threat we face from international terrorism and organised crime, which, at least in part, is touted as the utilitarian justification for the Bill.
	Nevertheless, any Bill that introduces this sort of change—and most assuredly this Bill does—must be subject to the most intense scrutiny. For the avoidance of doubt, I have deep-seated anxieties—not to say objections—about the Home Secretary's proposals. However, I do not propose to enumerate them today. For the moment it is enough to say that in my judgment the proposition itself, let alone the actual Bill as introduced today, is riddled with flaws.
	In passing, I am surprised by an omission from the gracious Speech, a revision of the Computer Misuse Act, something referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, last week. Given technological advances and developments since 1990, this is long overdue—the more so because of the work done on the matter by the All-Party Parliamentary Internet Group and because such an update would constrain the activity of organised crime and terrorism in a much more practical and immediate way than the ramshackle and woolly formulations about ID cards that the Home Secretary has brought forward. Moreover, it would chime with the insistence of my noble friend Lady Anelay that there are sensible and practical actions that the Government should be taking now.
	Be that as it may, it is the concept of a changed and changing,
	"relationship between state and individual",
	that has piqued my interest. In particular, I am intrigued by its constitutional context. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it:
	"We have been going through a tremendous constitutional revolution in the past seven years".—[Official Report, 15/9/04; col. 1249.]
	Some may see this as much-needed reform, others as unthinking vandalism. It matters not. We are where we are. What does matter is that the constitutional architecture and the culture of our polity have changed out of all recognition since 1997. And yet, as my noble friend Lord Patten put it, constitutional measures other than the Constitutional Reform Bill are the "dogs that didn't bark" in the gracious Speech. No doubt for some this is a source of disappointment.
	Others, however, may feel relieved that the Government's relentless drive to "modernise" our constitutional architecture appears, for the moment at least, to have paused to catch its breath.
	In truth, however, the presumption of an apparent moratorium on this administration's instinct to tinker mindlessly with the constitution is somewhat misplaced. While its hardware, its visible manifestations, are seemingly to be left alone for a while, fiddling with its software—what Peter Hennessy has called its "hidden wiring"—continues apace.
	In reality, this should not come as too much of a surprise. After all, this "hidden wiring" is where much of the rightly acclaimed flexibility of our constitution resides. That is all to the good but at the same time it poses problems. In particular, whereas changes to the hardware are of necessity subject to the full gaze of scrutiny that our legislative and parliamentary system can bring to bear, the "rewiring" of its internal and hidden circuitry occurs invisibly, to all intents and purposes, beyond the reach of any accountability and transparency. It is conducted outwith the normal checks and balances of our system.
	A glance at the chapter headings of Peter Hennessy's book bears witness to the cables and fulcrums around which this "hidden wiring" spins, thus: "Premiership: Shadow and Substance", "Cabinet: The Necessary Shambles", "Whitehall: Gyroscope of State", "Parliament: The Little Room", and so on. And, within this framework, the ways in which the constitutional circuit board can be tweaked and re-routed in ways that fundamentally change the relationship between the state and the individual are legion.
	For my purposes today I shall focus on "Cabinet: The Necessary Shambles". Here Claud Schuster's description of the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as,
	"like the procreation of eels . . . slippery and mysterious",
	is an enduring image for me. It is difficult not to apply it to the ongoing saga of Prime Minister versus Chancellor that is so inextricably woven into the current administration. Those of the party of government might like to dismiss that as mere tittle-tattle. Indeed, there would be some justification for so doing if the strains in the relationship did not impinge so mercilessly upon the concepts of Cabinet government and collective responsibility.
	Observation of how policy has been conducted in recent times invites speculation that, whatever the Prime Minister's perception of his style of government, the Chancellor has reserved to the Treasury virtual control of all economic and domestic matters, leaving the international stage to his nominal master. On occasion, for instance in relation to monetary union or reform of the public services, those tensions become all too apparent, with naked hostility between the Blairite and Brownite camps, not only within the parliamentary party but within the Cabinet itself, as is plainly evident. In other words, a fragmented and fractious duopoly sits at the core of the Government, and, in so far as that is accurate, it must militate against effective and meaningful collective responsibility.
	That, in turn, feeds into a palpable sense in which the concept of Cabinet government has been downgraded and sidelined since 1997. Of course there are justifications for that, in the sense that in the modern world it could be seen as too cumbersome and top-heavy an institution to be able to deliver efficient decision-making. Moreover, I accept, as I must, that this presumption of a neutering of Cabinet-style government was not necessarily initiated when new Labour came to power. Nevertheless, one could be forgiven for imagining that the process has accelerated hugely since May 1997.
	With hindsight, the now infamous Order in Council granting executive control over civil servants to Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell was a watershed in defining the Prime Minister's intent and preferred style of government. What has followed—the Prime Minister's apparent disdain for Parliament and its processes; the burgeoning growth of special advisers in Whitehall; the concentration on spin and media manipulation; what could be called back-of-envelope policy initiatives, the establishment of "sofa government" and so on—is a wholesale reshaping of the style of the executive and the relationship between the state and the individual. It suggests the establishment and solidification of the Prime Minister's power base and status as primus inter pares.
	In turns, departmental Cabinet Ministers have been relegated to the second division, while the two big teams of the Cabinet squabble over the premiership title. Taking that logic a little further, there is, as Clare Short has argued, a legitimate case suggesting that the Prime Minister has shifted us towards a more presidential style of government. As she observed in her resignation speech in another place:
	"In [Labour's] second term, the problem is the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who make decisions in private without proper discussion . . . There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective; just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that come from on high".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/03; col. 38.]
	Some may wish to imagine that, in that context, Clare Short is a less than reliable witness, not least because of her flouting of the principle of collective responsibility in respect of the war in Iraq in March 2003. But, as Graham Allen, writing in the Daily Telegraph, has observed:
	"In permitting Clare Short to keep her Cabinet job, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to put aside the longstanding convention regarding collective responsibility".
	Evidently, that is a supposition with which Peter Hennessy agrees. His comments in response to the review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, are scathing. He cites a,
	"failure to use the Cabinet system—the ultimate check and balance of British central government—properly",
	adding for good measure:
	"The language [in paragraph 6.10 of the report] is measured . . . Never has there been an indictment to match this of a system's failure at the heart of British government".
	I am well aware that that is not a universally held view. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, has observed, different Prime Ministers do the job in different ways, and constitutional practice has proved flexible in finding ways of enabling that to happen while ensuring that conventions are met.
	In fact, the noble Lord makes my point for me. It is precisely because different Prime Ministers do the job in different ways that the relationship between the state and the individual is subject to change. We can, and do, differ on how acceptable each individual Prime Minister's way of doing things is. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the current Prime Minister's approach has shifted the relationship between the state and the individual manifestly.
	At the heart of this lies a simple truism, expressed by Peter Hennessy in these terms:
	"The constitution does not belong to the government of the day",
	but to the whole population of the country. In fact, Labour's 1997 manifesto acknowledged that:
	"Our mission in politics is to rebuild this bond of trust between government and the people. That is the only way democracy can flourish. I pledge to Britain a government which shares their hopes, which understands their fears, and which will work as partners with and for all our people, not just the privileged few. This is our contract with the people".
	Against the background of a collapse of public trust in the current administration resulting from the methodology used to justify the war in Iraq, the unedifying spectacle of Parliament wrestling with the Hunting Bill and the re-routing of the constitution's hidden wiring, we can, I think, be forgiven for supposing that that aspiration is tarnished and threadbare. Given the YouGov poll reported in today's Daily Telegraph, we have perhaps come full circle since the claim in the same document that,
	"There is unquestionably a national crisis of confidence in our political system".
	I have saved the last word for the forebear of my noble friend Lord Attlee. Writing in the Daily Telegraph in 1960, he suggested that,
	"The essential principle of our British system is that of collective responsibility. Ministers are not mere creatures of the Prime Minister but, for the most part, elected representatives. Ministers [are] responsible to the Crown, Parliament and the electorate . . . An approach to one-man Government is in my view a mistake".
	Those wise words may be more traditionalist than modernist and therefore not to the taste of those on the Benches opposite, let alone the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that they have particular relevance and resonate far more today than they would have done seven and a half years ago.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall attempt to be brief. I welcome the many positive measures on home affairs presented in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, particularly the youth justice Bill, which will make it clear that the aim of work in the youth justice system is rehabilitation. That is a welcome step forward. I also commend to your Lordships the speech made by my noble friend Lady Stern, who made a remarkably robust and authoritative evaluation of the treatment of juveniles in custody. I shall concentrate on the offender management Bill and look at the training of prison officers, as compared to that of probation officers, and at the way in which the identity of prison officers is distinct from that of probation officers.
	Before doing so, I also draw to your Lordships' attention the forthcoming youth Green Paper. It is essential to the debate on anti-social behaviour and preventing crime that we address the issue of the decline in youth services over many years. It is welcome that, since 1997, the Government have invested significant additional resources in that area. However, Tom Wylie of the National Youth Agency said recently that there were problems about the implementation of services. It is a local government responsibility, and the funding is not necessarily going where it was intended to go.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, emphasised the concern that we must have about what might happen in the merging of the two services, some of which we already know. I was very disturbed to see the reports on television of how the probation service first received news of the proposed merger and how it was handled. It was reminiscent of your Lordships' experience, when we learnt of the Lord Chancellor's sudden disappearance from our constitution.
	I was reminded of a visit that I made to a meeting of guardians ad litem during the implementation of CAFCASS, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which merged two different professional groups. That meeting was just before the guardians successfully took CAFCASS to judicial review. Many of them were talking about leaving the service and moving to different work. Because so many left, as the noble Baroness will know from her previous employment, vulnerable children must now wait many weeks before a guardian can be their advocate in those important cases.
	There are parallels between the training of prison officers and the training of those who work in residential childcare, those working in children's homes. I recently visited the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care—we do not have an equivalent in this country—which provides free training and consultancy to Scottish children's homes. We discussed the prevalent philosophy on the Continent—social pedagogy—which has been in place for many years. In children's homes on the Continent, staff receive two to three years' training, based heavily on child development. The other side of the training is in means of engaging with young people, including, for instance, music or crafts. My noble friend Lady Stern referred to the admirable work of Camila Batmanghelidjh with Kids Company. Her astounding work with young people is based on that approach of combining a good understanding of child development with a means of engaging young people.
	The point to take from that is that social work is very different from residential childcare work. Residential childcare workers live day by day with the children for whom they care. They can be very troubled children with whom some sort of working relationship must be formed if the childcare workers wish to make good the deficits that these children have when they come into care. Historically, in this country, we have not recognised the importance of that caring role.
	In residential childcare, 68 per cent of children have mental disorders and 63 per cent have conduct disorders. Yet, in the past, there has been a situation where 80 per cent of the staff have no relevant qualification for such work. Now we are beginning to move towards a better situation with a National Vocational Qualification Level 3, but that is still a very long way from what happens on the Continent.
	There is a parallel here with what happens in the Prison Service. A year ago, at a YoungMinds conference—YoungMinds is a charity for children's mental health—I spoke with a clinician who had visited many prisons in her work. She said that it was so regrettable that many sex offender programmes were not, in her view, effective because the prison officers administering them were simply not skilled enough to do the job well. I hope that she is wrong.
	I visited Wandsworth Prison with a number of Cross-Bench colleagues. We were very impressed at the enthusiasm of the prison officers working in the sex offenders' wing. But when one considers the level of training of prison officers, there must be a question of how well they can deliver such complex services.
	The Secretary-General of the Prison Officers' Association spoke to Members of your Lordships' House recently. He reminded us that prison officer training has decreased from 11 weeks to eight weeks. He spoke about the people with whom he and his colleagues dealt. Some of them were career criminals but many were the most inadequate, poor and impoverished people in the land. He was asked what support his officers received for working in such an environment, in having close relationships day by day, week by week with such people who were troubled and who we know have very high levels of mental and personality disorders. His response was that they received "none".
	That is so reminiscent of what happens in residential childcare where there is the inability to form partnerships that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, spoke about earlier and the need to form partnerships with different agencies. But if the front-line staff working with the most troubled and damaged people have such a poor level of training, it is very hard for them to co-operate and to trust outsiders who come in with graduate level qualifications.
	I hope that in looking at the national offender management Bill, we will keep very much in mind the identity of prison officers and take this perhaps historic occasion to review the training that they receive. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say whether there will be a review of the training of prison officers. When Martin Narey spoke to parliamentarians, he acknowledged that the difference between eight weeks' training for prison officers and three years' training for probation officers is very large for two groups of professionals who are supposed to work with each other.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, will have had some forewarning of my next question regarding young offender institutions. The White Paper, entitled, Justice for All, states:
	"Young adult prisoners aged 18-20 present particular challenges for the correctional services and we have yet to respond to their specific needs and difficulties . . . Currently, there is no specific provision for 18-20s and the recent concentration on regimes for under-18s has put the relative lack of provision for young adult offenders in stark contrast".
	I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the progress being made in terms of improving the regime, thus acknowledging the concerns raised by the Government.
	To conclude, if prison officers are to treat offenders with humanity, they need the skills to work in the prison environment and to develop close relationships with what are often damaged people. That I believe is an end in itself, just as having highly skilled and well qualified staff in children's homes is similarly an end in itself. We want that for children because we recognise the deficiencies and abuse they have endured before they go into homes and we think that they should have the best, most qualified, thoughtful and reflective professionals to work with them. To a degree we must think the same of prison officers.
	It is also a means to an end. If we are serious about having good rehabilitative programmes, we need a seamless service that puts offenders back out in the community, settling them down and getting them into work. Skilled prison officers are necessary to deliver it. Any educationist will say that children learn through modelling and that that is the best way to teach any subject. A good example is the best lesson. If we can show prisoners, perhaps for the first time in their lives, a model of humanity in the form of adults who treat them with respect, who respond consistently and who will not be vindictive, when they go back out on to the streets there is the hope that they will begin to treat others with more respect and dignity than they have experienced in their own pasts.
	I look forward to the reply of the noble Baroness.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as is usual in debates on the gracious Speech, the debate has been both interesting and wide-ranging. We have heard two distinguished maiden speeches from speakers whom we very much hope to hear again, although I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, will not mind if I make one small correction to her speech. The first MP of Indian descent was not, as she suggested, Mr Saklatvala, but Mr Dadabhai Naoroji, who was elected as a Liberal MP for Finsbury Central in 1894, some 30 years earlier.
	I am in absolute agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, about the protection of universities and their staff from harassment by animal rights movements, and about the dangers to and damage caused by visa charges on students.
	I was very much encouraged by the number of speakers this evening, starting with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who have expressed their concern about the threat of the Government's legislative programme to human rights and civil liberties. I refer in particular to the typically passionate speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, which I believe should be compulsory reading for the Prime Minister and all Ministers in the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	The debate covered the problems of all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom—not only England, but also Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Battersea. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was particularly thought-provoking. He said that he was a devolutionist because he is a unionist, and that he felt that that has been a success. It certainly appears so to all of us south of the Border, perhaps because the Scots now get so annoyed with Holyrood that they do not have the same time and incentive to get annoyed with Westminster.
	I was struck by the concerns expressed about the problems of children and young people who get involved with the criminal justice system in the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	My noble friend Lord Dholakia dealt with most of the Home Office Bills and I will indicate our response to the Bills from the Department for Constitutional Affairs which were referred to in the gracious Speech.
	First, the criminal defence service Bill will govern legal aid in criminal cases. We of course support the principle of controlling costs and it is wholly unacceptable that 1 per cent of criminal cases account for 40 per cent of criminal legal aid. It is right in principle that defendants who can afford to pay should do so—if they are acquitted, of course, normally they recover their costs from public funds—but we are concerned that the savings may turn out to be small and that the need to assess ability to pay before legal aid can be granted may lead to significant delays. We need to be sure that the system for deciding whether legal aid should be granted is fair and speedy before we can give it our full support.
	The Inquiries Bill will receive its Second Reading next week in your Lordships' House. This has not been exactly a good year for inquiries. The Bloody Sunday inquiry has taken an intolerable amount of time, it has cost an intolerable amount of money and it looks all too likely that it will leave us no clearer about the events of that day. The Hutton report can best be described as quick but naive and, of the high profile inquiries, only Butler comes out with a reasonable amount of credit—and then only from those who can translate the Mandarin into English.
	The question is whether the Bill will improve the inquiry system. Inquiries should be independent, open, targeted and effective in their use of time. The Bill will help this and we give it a general welcome. We have some doubts about aspects of the Bill—for example, when we reach the Committee and Report stages of the Bill we shall want to look at the extent of the Government's powers to prevent publication of reports.
	The judicial pensions Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but we shall see it shortly. Here I find myself—a little to my surprise—in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, although I do not find myself in anything like total agreement with the rest of what he said. The purpose of the Bill is to give judges an exemption from the proposed general rule that relief on pension contributions will not be given if the pension pot exceeds £1.5 million. It is not clear why judges need a special exemption from this tax law. They are not normally immune from changes in tax law; if the rate of income tax goes up, the amount of income tax that judges pay goes up.
	Judges get generous pensions. As I understand it, they receive a two-thirds pension after 20 years' service and—this is important—most of them will have built up substantial private pension pots during their time in practice. Most judges take a substantial cut in earnings when they go onto the Bench—no doubt a good judicial pension is part of the incentive for them to do so—but it is not clear whether this special exemption is justified. If the present incentives are inadequate it would be better to be open and to increase judicial salaries, rather than to hide any increase by fiddling with the tax arrangements. We are therefore very likely to oppose the Bill.
	We are likely to support the draft civil claims and tribunals Bill and we agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, in that regard. The Constitutional Reform Bill has been carried over—I shall speak to that Bill shortly—and there are a number of other Bills which involve the Department for Constitutional Affairs and other departments.
	We shall support the Mental Capacity Bill, which has been carried over. It clarifies and strengthens the rights of a vulnerable section of the community and we certainly do not see it, as some have claimed, as a Bill to authorise euthanasia. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which had its Second Reading today, is, of course, just that. I support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, but that is an entirely different matter.
	An equality Bill will establish a single commission for equality and human rights. That is a principle which we have strongly supported, although we are not satisfied that the commission will have adequate powers.
	With regard to the charities Bill, again, we welcome the modernisation of an archaic field of law. There can be few others where so much attention is still paid to a statute passed in 1603. We support the Bill in principle.
	The draft corporate manslaughter Bill is, in fact, a DTI Bill, but it is dealt with here as a Home Office Bill. There are undoubtedly problems with the existing law. In frequent cases, no individual in a company is so negligent as to be personally guilty of manslaughter, but the cumulative effect of the failures of several different people is to leave the company with a wholly inadequate system to ensure health and safety. It is plainly right that in those circumstances, the corporation should be convicted of manslaughter and therefore subject to a heavy fine and damage to its reputation.
	However, it does not follow, as some people have suggested, that when a company is convicted of corporate manslaughter, the directors of that company should therefore be liable to prison. That should happen only when a director is charged with manslaughter under the existing law on the grounds of his own gross negligence. However, I suggest that we investigate the possibility of extending civil penalties under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to cases where failures of the directors have collectively contributed to a corporate manslaughter case.
	Let me turn to the wider question of the constitution. Since 1997, the Government have made many changes to the constitution. We have supported almost all of them—indeed, we advocated many of them long before the Government did. But there is unfinished business. I should like to mention three outstanding issues. One is party funding, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. He rather understated the amount of money that has been spent in the past because he referred to the money spent in the 2001 election and not to the much larger sums spent in the 1997 election, when the Conservatives spent £26 million and the Labour Party £28 million.
	I think that the time has come—and I hope that the Electoral Commission will say so in its report—for a cap on the amount that can be given to a political party by any individual or corporation. At the other end, there should be tax relief, perhaps similar to Gift Aid, on small donations to political parties.
	Secondly, in its manifesto for the last election, the Labour Party committed itself to a review of voting systems. That review plainly cannot be completed before the election is called, but it could at least be announced and commenced. There has been no action so far, and I hope that that will come before the dissolution of the present Parliament.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, is the further reform of your Lordships' House. There has been no movement whatever for five years. The present position is simply not sustainable. Nothing is proposed in the gracious Speech. To some extent, I can understand that, because any proposals will be controversial and not suitable for what is likely to be a short Session of Parliament. But we have made our views clear to the Government.
	We believe that three principles must be applied to reform. First, your Lordships' House must contain elected Members. Secondly, those elected Members must, at least by the end of the transitional period, amount to a clear majority of Members of your Lordships' House. Thirdly, those Members must be elected by a democratic and proportional system and not by some half-baked secondary system such as that proposed by Billy Bragg. We greatly welcome the initiative of five senior Members of Parliament—Robin Cook, Tony Wright, Ken Clarke, George Young and my honourable friend Paul Tyler—in publishing their proposals for the reform of your Lordships' House and their intention to produce a draft Bill in the new year. I believe that there is wide recognition in all parties, not only in mine, of the need for democratic reform of your Lordship's House.
	Today's debate has covered issues that are central to the Government's legislative programme. We need to look and we will look at the items in that programme on their merits. To some, I have indicated that we will give full support. In some cases, we will have to wait to see the details before we can make a decision. Others, we will oppose. We recognise that the security of the public from terrorism and from more mundane forms of crime is of enormous importance, but so too are the liberty and freedom of the individual. Terrible evils have been done in the past in the name of security. It is ironic that in revolutionary France the committee of public safety was the vehicle for the terror.
	Of course, some restrictions on liberty may have to be imposed for the sake of security, but those restrictions must be imposed only if they are necessary, proportionate to the threat and are measures that are likely to be effective. It is against those benchmarks that we will test the proposals in the Government's programme.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first of all I must apologise to your Lordships for addressing you in the grip of a terrible cold. I hope that it will at least influence the amount of time that I remain on my feet.
	The occasion opened this afternoon with a characteristically emollient speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and was adorned by two excellent maidens by the noble Lord, Lord Gould, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. I greatly look forward to hearing much more from both of your Lordships.
	There was even a momentary outbreak of harmonious agreement between these Benches behind me and the Government when my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree exhibited almost uncharacteristic enthusiasm in asking the Government to hurry up with the piece of legislation concerning the implementation of the Leggatt proposals. I hope that he limits his enthusiasm to that particular measure in future.
	The Leggatt measure is a different sort of inquiries measure to the inquiries Bill that we shall be considering now in your Lordships' House. I have not had a chance to do more than glance at the Bill. However, I have one or two questions to warm the Minister up for her reply. Will the Bill have the effect of removing the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint inquiries? If not, will it limit his scope to do so? I ask the question for an obvious reason; because there has been much controversy recently about the appropriateness of appointing High Court judges to sit on inquiries that raise controversial political matters. Does this Bill say anything about that; or, if it does not on its face, can it be interpreted to say something about that?
	Secondly, I notice that the Bill focuses on the power of Ministers to set up inquiries. Can a Minister set up an inquiry into the conduct of another Minister under the Bill? If so, how will that affect the doctrine of collective responsibility?
	Thirdly, since I note its absence, will the Minister consider the possibility of your Lordships' House conducting the kind of inquiries that are recognised in the Bill? In the common law jurisdiction across the Atlantic, the United States Senate characteristically conducts major public inquiries. I would suggest to the Minister that the fact that we have a large number of Cross-Bench Members here who are aligned to no political party ought to make your Lordships' House an extremely attractive forum for conducting certain sorts of public inquiry. We have two functions as a House: we scrutinise legislation, and we have the responsibility to control the executive. Our task of controlling the executive is done mainly through Question Time, which is engaging and sometimes effective but can hardly be said on every occasion to be thorough. What better way in which to advance our role in controlling the executive than to have a responsibility for the kind of public inquiry mentioned in this Bill? Those public inquiries are all about controlling executive action.
	The task of dealing with Home Office Bills at the beginning of this debate fell to my noble friend Lady Anelay. As usual, she fulfilled it in the brilliant way to which all my noble friends and your Lordships' House have become accustomed. I shall touch on one or two Home Office points before saying something, very telegraphically, about constitutional matters.
	Undoubtedly the first few years of the 21st century present us with two huge policing tasks—one international and the other national. The international task, as your Lordships are well aware, is the task of keeping international terrorism under control. It is probably the greatest policing challenge that this country has ever faced, characterised by men and women whose malign instinct is to destroy other societies rather than build up their own.
	But there is also an important domestic challenge. If your Lordships think back to what our society was like 30 or 40 years ago, your Lordships will remember that it was, in very large measure, a self-regulating society. Values inculcated by families and schools gave individuals not only self-respect, but respect for other people. In vast tracts of conduct, for which police intervention is now vital—and the kind of orders which the Government have had to introduce are vital—30 or 40 years ago none of that state intervention was necessary. So we face a new problem. Liberal, with a small "l" of course, though I am, I recognise that the state has been given a challenge to which it will have to live up.
	In meeting these two challenges, the state must be informed by two principles. The first is the principle of proportionality. It must do no more than is necessary to solve the problem posed. Secondly, as so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, what we do must be in the great tradition of the common law. In the common law we have been handed down, from generation to generation, the finest set of operational instructions to guarantee liberty of any country in the world. If we are not careful, we shall throw all that away.
	Curiously enough, one of the contradictions that we face has flowed from putting on our statute books the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not going to launch into an attack on the convention, because I always supported it. Although I opposed its incorporation into our law, I accept that it has resulted in much of value. But there is one area in which the incorporation of the convention is having a deleterious effect—on the rights of the defendant in criminal trials. Because the convention's jurisprudence is based largely on decisions by judges brought up in the inquisitorial system, it simply does not understand the presumption of innocence. Therefore, the jurisprudence of the European Court in Strasbourg does not reflect the presumption of innocence. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the Government to certify Bills in criminal law which conform with the European Convention on Human Rights but which fall well below the standards of our own common law.
	A classic illustration of that was the Government's decision to allow propensity evidence to be introduced into criminal trials in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That is very relevant to our debate today. The first measures that will appear in your Lordships' House after we cease to debate the gracious Speech are two orders that define the scope within which courts will determine whether propensity evidence is allowed into a criminal trial.
	I remain aghast at the Government's decision to make that change to our law. They asked the Law Commission to look at it. The Law Commission produced an opinion consistent with the jurisprudence of the past but the Government ignored it. The Government ignored everything that my noble friends, Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches and many Cross-Benchers said about the provisions. Above all, they ignored everything that the judges have said, from the most lowly of courts making decisions about crime, up to the summit of our system in your Lordships' House, where judges have consistently said that propensity evidence in a trial is no evidence at all.
	The clause is on the statute book, and we will now be dealing with delegated legislation. However, we are entitled to give those draft measures the most intense scrutiny when they come before your Lordships. They are the straw in the wind. We must be most watchful with the cases that emerge from the courts to ensure that the judges allow propensity evidence in only the most flagrant cases.
	My concerns lie not just in the area of propensity evidence. In Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, wide powers are given to chief constables to exchange the general principle that a police officer can stop and search you only on reasonable suspicion with the principle of search for reasons of expediency. I entirely accept that there are certain circumstances in which that is entirely valid; but not in the way that it has often been used in, for example, the area of Greater London. There could be no better exhibition of that than the recent article from the Spectator quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, about a young man who had been stopped and searched for no apparent reason. I do not subscribe to the Spectator. I read the article only because it was drawn to my attention; and I have what was said in it as the only record of fact. But if only a modest proportion of what was said in the article is right, it gives rise to great concern about erosion of the principle of arrest only on reasonable suspicion.
	Then there is a matter which was raised in yesterday's Sunday Times and referred to by my noble friend Lady Anelay. It was a remark by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said that,
	"we do not want to fight terrorism by destroying precisely those things terrorism is trying to take away from us.
	Open, liberal democracies fail if they try to protect themselves by becoming illiberal, closed and repressive".
	There is, indeed, a temptation to use the threat of terrorism to change the rules in other areas of law to make it easier for the Government and the police to achieve their result in those areas than it otherwise would be. That is a temptation that must be robustly resisted.
	The worst example of that tendency in recent times is the EU arrest warrant—absolutely justified in the aftermath of 9/11 in relation to terrorism, but totally unjustified in relation to every other offence. One can now be extradited from this country to another signatory state to the warrant, even though that state does not recognise even the standards of criminal law contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. No check can be made by a judge in this country. That is not the sort of legislation that we would like repeated.
	Noble Lords are well aware of what my noble friend Lady Anelay said about the Identity Cards Bill. It is absolutely critical that it must not fall into the same trap as the arrest warrant Bill or a number of others where the requirements were ill defined and unspecified and, equally, the implications of that ill definition were not spelt out. If we do not have a clear understanding of why we are to have an identity card, what specific purpose it is to achieve and what information will flow from an inspection of it, the notion that individuals have rights that they are capable of protecting against police will be no longer worthy of mention in our system of criminal law.
	The Government must be vigilant to ensure that everything that they do under their new legislation is proportionate. Glancing at another Bill, I am not filled with great hope that it will be. We support the so-called Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but we note that it will make all offences, of whatever nature, arrestable. Why on earth is that necessary? Why cannot we stick to the old system under the PACE Act 1984? What is the logic? It seems wholly disproportionate.
	There is a link between all this and the constitutional issue; it is very simple and I shall spend two minutes on it in concluding.
	The disproportionate approach is taken by the Government because there is an imbalance in the Cabinet between the forces of order and the forces of justice. The forces of order in the Cabinet are too strong; the forces of justice in the Cabinet are too weak. One principal reason for that is that we do not have a Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet. It is true that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has "Lord Chancellor" tagged on the end of his title; but he is not sitting in the Cabinet at the moment as Lord Chancellor. He is sitting there as a junior Secretary of State with responsibility for constitutional affairs. In relation to the great men in the Cabinet, particularly the Home Secretary, he has very little influence to ensure that criminal legislation properly reflects both the requirements of order and the interests of justice.
	I earnestly hope that, when the Constitutional Reform Bill is completed and the noble and learned Lord is returned to the Cabinet as Lord Chancellor alone, with all the dignities, precedents and powers that that great office has held throughout the centuries, we will see an immediate change in the balance of order and justice.
	If we do not, I will conclude that something even more radical will have to be done in the upper echelons of our politics; namely, to make sure that people who make the kind of rules to ensure order in our society do not at the same time determine the rules of criminal evidence. That is a step too far at the moment for many of your Lordships, but it may be a step that we have to take sooner rather than later.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying that this has proved to be another important debate on the gracious Speech. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if that was his performance when he has a cold, I am fearful of what will happen when he returns to full strength.
	I feel, as other noble Lords have said, that the maiden speeches this evening were of an extremely high calibre. In a sense, both gave us a backdrop against which the measures that we are debating are framed. My noble friend Lady Prosser talked about her life in Battersea and the relevance of some of our proposed measures—specifically ASBOs—for those who live in tower blocks and our deprived communities. She then translated her experiences into her work regarding the trafficking of women in an international context—an important aspect of the work in which we are involved. I pay great tribute to my noble friend for her work, both for the Transport and General Workers Union and the Women's National Commission. My noble friend Lord Gould of Brookwood has great experience in understanding what people think and believe. My noble friend spoke with great passion about our citizens' concerns and views, particularly in terms of rights and responsibilities. Both my noble friends spoke with authenticity about what people care about—and they spoke the truth. They will be assets to your Lordships' House and I am proud to call both my noble friends.
	Building on the firm foundations that we have laid thus far, the measures that we have proposed for this coming full Session are intended to provide our nation with a modern legal and constitutional structure, fitted to the 21st century, which puts the needs of the public first, will protect us from existing and new threats at home and abroad and provide support and safeguards, in particular for those who are vulnerable in our communities.
	I was delighted by the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to at least one of the Bills in the list and by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with whom I agree that not every solution is available for all of the complex problems that we face. In a sense, that is why we have put such a range of measures before your Lordships' House. It is clear, as noble Lords have indicated, that we need to debate how best to protect civil liberties in our communities, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Ahmed, said, in our ethnic minority communities. It is indeed our contention that the measures before your Lordships' House will help to support those communities more effectively.
	I agree, too, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that it is important to consider how you introduce change and how it will impact upon those at the front line; I also agree that the importance of dialogue with those involved is absolutely relevant. That is particularly true when one considers how many of the measures reflect what comes back from the front line in terms of needs. Our proposal regarding community support officers partly reflect what comes back to us.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave us an entertaining and considered speech. I do not make any apology for what we have before us—we do want to deal with the drug pushers, with the perpetrators of serious crime, with terrorists, with paedophilia and, I should add, with traffickers. However, we are not about trying to make villains out of people who are lawful citizens and immigrants to this country—those who contribute so much to the vibrancy, the culture and the economy of this nation. But I agree with the noble Lord that there are victims in this matter, too—those who have been trafficked, those who have had drugs pushed to them, especially the young and the vulnerable in this context.
	Before I proceed further, I should address the particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, regarding the Peter Riddell piece in the Times, because it is an important matter to clear up. I have checked this carefully. I should make it clear to noble Lords more generally that we would never make it compulsory to carry an identity card at all times. The Clause 15 prohibition was contained in the draft Bill that was published in April 2004, and it is that—the draft Bill—to which the journalist's attention was drawn. The briefing was embargoed until one minute past midnight on Monday, which is the normal time for a background briefing, and it focused on the response to the report of the Select Committee for Home Affairs on identity cards, which set out how the Government intended to proceed. It did not in any way breach the parliamentary procedure about which the noble Baroness was concerned. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied with that response.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also discussed the issue of modernising and reform. A number of attempts have been made to interpret the word "modernisation" but I shall give noble Lords my own interpretation because I think that it is an important point. For me, modernisation is about recognising the society and the world in which we live. We need to reflect the changes that exist within that world—whether they concern the way in which crime is perpetrated, the technological changes that can help us to enhance our security and safety, or whether they are about modernising the 1603 preamble that brought us the Charities Bill.
	Reform is about doing some of the things that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has wanted for a long time—that is, it concerns joined-up thinking about how we operate. It concerns listening again to those on the front line about the changes that would make a difference in supporting communities and how we address some of these issues. As the noble Earl will recall, much within the Children Bill attempted to deal with that issue and to respond to people's needs. In my experience, most Bills contain elements of both, and so I am unable to give the noble and learned Lord the list that I had hoped to provide. I am happy to try but I think that there are elements within both.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about the role of Cabinet and the forces of order and justice. It was a very interesting speech and I plan to read it in Hansard. I do not recognise the description of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend played an important and vital role in Cabinet discussions. But this is a Cabinet where colleagues work together to address some of the most difficult, and sometimes intransigent, issues faced by our society. That is a description that I do recognise. Perhaps—I say this with the greatest respect—I am slightly closer to this issue than noble Lords opposite.
	I turn to the Constitutional Reform Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester enticed me a little by talking about his scepticism of a Supreme Court, but he chose not to follow it through. I am sure that we shall hear more from the right reverend Prelate in the future. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also enticed me slightly by referring to this matter.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked me specifically how Schedule 1, which I think now carries a different number in the Bill, would be dealt with in terms of all the legislative changes that were made around the Lord Chancellor. They will be dealt with as they are now—through discussion and dialogue. I believe that that is the right way forward in dealing with the issues between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
	I was grateful for the general support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the criminal defence service Bill. We have sought to engage constructively with our stakeholders. We believe that the final outcome strikes a balance between fairness to the defendant and administrative simplicity as well as ensuring that we achieve the best value from taxpayers' money.
	Perhaps I may begin my short section on the courts and tribunals Bill by paying great tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. I endorse much of what the noble Lord said. I hope that the Bill will have a survival rate, not least because it is one of mine. I was grateful, too, for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	In response to a specific question, the Bill will be published in March 2005. It does, indeed, cover the issue of bailiffs, who will be licensed, and the issue of how they operate within a regulated structure will form part of the Bill. I also agree with the noble Lord in recognising the work of my noble friend Lord Filkin in getting us this far. I am certain that he will ensure that I continue to push as hard as I can on the very important and interesting issue of providing a service to people. I am very grateful for my noble friend's enormous contribution in this area.
	Again, I am grateful for the general welcome given to the Inquiries Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me a number of specific questions about the Bill. It will not change the prerogative of the Prime Minister. In the Bill, we deal with dialogue with the Lord Chief Justice about the role of High Court judges. It does not affect how inquiries are conducted between different departments. I recognise what the noble Lord said about the enormous experience within your Lordships' House—not least on the Cross Benches. I see them as a group of people upon whom we can potentially draw, as we have done many times, to be involved in inquiries.
	However, I disagree slightly with the noble Lord on what inquiries are about. A number of inquiries have not been about internal government issues. They have been far more about finding out what has happened; for example, the inquiries into Shipman, the death of Victoria Climbié, and Ashworth and the mental hospitals. All those important pieces of work have been critical in reforming and/or modernising the system. I look forward to introducing the Bill formally at Second Reading.
	I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the Mental Capacity Bill. I agree with him. I cannot emphasise enough that this Bill is not about euthanasia, but about giving protection to people who have waited a very long time. The Bill has been in the making for 15 years. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will represent Her Majesty's Opposition on the Bill. As always, he will do a superb job.
	The noble Lord, Lord Patten, said that we had smuggled in the judicial pensions Bill. Clearly not, because at the weekend it was in the press and now it is in your Lordships' House. If we had attempted to smuggle it in—as indeed we did not—it was a bad effort. I was grateful for the flattery offered to me by the noble Lord. Like him, in this new job I battle with the terminology; working out who is "learned" and who is not is incredibly difficult to master. Much of what the noble Lord said about education is worthy of a separate debate, but in the context of judicial diversity, we want to ensure that we have the best talent possible right the way through the judiciary. That means reflecting on some of the issues about why people are not coming forward. I look forward to debating that further.

Lord Patten: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has been kind enough to refer to my speech, perhaps she could deal with another point that I raised. With due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, he is one of the two Cabinet Ministers in your Lordships' House and in many ways this is his day—a debate on constitutional and legal matters. However, he has not been in the Chamber a great deal to listen to what have been some absolutely fascinating speeches made by noble Lords from all sides of the House. Why is that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has many duties and responsibilities, as the noble Lord will recognise. On dealing with this very important debate, I had hoped that my presence would suffice your Lordships. It has been a great privilege to address the House this evening. If that does not suffice—I think that it does—perhaps the noble Lord would like to take that up with my noble and learned friend.
	I turn to judicial pensions per se. As judges' pensions are set out in statute, there are very clear reasons why the Bill is needed. It is not about trying to do anything other than recognise what other employers are able to do in other situations. As judges are covered by statute we are unable to deal with the matter in any other way. I again look forward to further debates on that issue.
	Turning to the management of offenders Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, more or less said what I would have said, which was that if we manage offenders better we will reduce recidivism. If we are able to support people, we could prevent them committing further offences.
	I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on the importance of training. My noble friend Lady Scotland will write to him on those issues as they are very important. I did not receive advance notice of his questions on 18 to 20 year-olds, but I am not at all surprised that he raised them. We debated such issues under the Children Bill. I know that the noble Earl feels very strongly about them: again, it is back to joining up, better provision and giving of the best to those with whom we can work most. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments there. We hope that the development of the end-to-end offender management, with a single person responsible for the management of each individual offender, will result in better management and will give continuity of support and care so that that group will benefit. I hope that we shall hear more from the noble Earl on those issues as the Bill is debated.
	Devolution was discussed by a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who I was sorry to hear was abolished again, and, of course, my noble friend Lord Sewel. Many issues were raised concerning the Welsh Assembly and the Richard review. It will not surprise noble Lords that I shall not go into those this evening. The Assembly has written to the Secretary of State, considering what happens after the Richard report. Meanwhile, we continue to work within the settlement.
	My noble friend Lord Sewel spoke about the Sewel Motions. Since devolution there have been 55 Sewel Motions, many of them on important but marginal issues of UK Bills, ensuring that the legal systems work across borders, which is very important. I shall reflect on what my noble friend has said and I am sure that in future we shall be able to discuss those issues in greater detail.
	The draft youth justice Bill is an important part of the legislative programme. I was grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is important to get a sturdier and simplified structure of sentences which will give robust alternatives to a custodial sentence and focus on the prevention of offending.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who I know feels very passionately about these issues, that providing the new sentence with the intensive supervision and surveillance order is meant to be a tough and effective alternative to custody. That means that we can limit custody to cases where these remedies have been tried or where they are inappropriate for exceptional reasons.
	I think that will move closer to where the noble Baroness wishes us to be. I also share her distress at the death of Joseph, Adam and Gareth. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I anticipate that the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office will work very closely together to address some of the issues raised, particularly as a result of the death of Joseph Scholes. Officials have indicated to me that this dialogue is ongoing. I am more than happy to intermediate if necessary.
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill is an important piece of legislation. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Prosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for their welcome for the Bill and also for the support of my noble friend Lord Ahmed in his powerful speech.
	The right reverend Prelate gave a general welcome to Part 4 of the Bill—the issues of incitement to religious hatred. I agree that we need a high threshold. The threshold must be appropriate. I also agree that this new offence will not and must not interfere with the vigorous public debate on religious beliefs that one would expect to see.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made an important contribution. The Government are confident about this provision, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will add greatly to our deliberations.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was unsure about community support officers. I believe that they are an important additional resource. They are very welcome in our communities. I accept that we need to have scrutiny about the additional resources, powers and work they will be doing, but I recognise their value. I agree with my noble friend Lady Henig that they are an important part of the police family.
	I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe that the clauses to tackle the animal rights extremists will come in two months after Royal Assent. I note the support given to her remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
	I hope that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, are unfounded and that we can prove that to him—not least that this is not some eastern bloc-style operation. I hope that in a sense the contribution of my noble friend Lady Henig will have addressed his fears. I am very pleased that we are working closely with the police, both locally and nationally, as we develop SOCA, as it has become known.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, were concerned about identity cards. They were concerned about the remit of cards, their effectiveness, the systems, the cost and the civil liberties issues. I accept that we need to be clear about what we will and will not do. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, the balance will be important. However, I believe that this measure is about strengthening and not weakening civil liberties.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, feels that there will be some opposition from his Benches on this issue, but I welcome the debate. I recognise as relevant what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said about a technological background creeping in that is hardware, software and hidden wiring. He gave a very important speech linking the ID cards to broader constitutional issues. I think that an important part of our debates will be on the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the issue of civil liberties in particular.
	I turn to the drugs Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will agree with what is in the Bill about treatment for those with drug addiction. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that aggravating factors such as using children are very important.
	The consultation process for the draft counter-terrorism proposals is under way. The issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may or may not arise. The noble Lord said that our job is to be "alert and not alarmed"—a slogan, but an important one—making sure that people can carry out their daily business.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, were concerned about these measures. Consultation is very important. I hope that as we deliberate on these issues we shall look at some of the matters that have been raised, not least what the noble and learned Lord said about telephone surveillance—a matter which I have picked up.
	The charities Bill is not just about private schools, although that is what gets mentioned. A lot of work is under way concerning how private schools have worked constructively with state schools to support and provide resources for students which, I think, is a good model for what charitable institutions can do. I can tell my noble friend Lady Warwick that there will be minimum bureaucracy for universities; the arrangements will be introduced with that aim in mind; and we assure her that the charities Bill affects universities by changing the arrangements for their regulation, but nothing threatens the charitable status of universities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised—I knew that he would—the important issue of waterways. Having listened to him, it would be much better addressed in separate correspondence, and I shall write to him.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, talked a lot about dialogue in Northern Ireland. I agree. The noble Lord will be aware of the intensive dialogue that is under way and noble Lords will understand why I shall not comment further. However, I listened with great care and I know that the noble Lord is in touch with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about his ideas.
	In closing, let me pick up a few of the other points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked: do we learn lessons from what we do? Yes, and we learn them from our predecessor governments too. Is it important that we review what we do? I could not agree more with the noble Baroness; yes, it is. Do I agree with her list of mistakes? No, I do not. Some people's mistakes are other people's move into a new and better world. I accept what the noble Baroness says, but it is important that the Government are able to be frank and open and benefit from all that has gone before.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked about the review of the laws on murder. As the noble and learned Lord knows, the Law Commission has already done significant work. The review will be led by the Home Office with strong support from the two other criminal justice departments: that is, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the legal secretary at the Law Offices. How it is to be set up is yet to be finalised, but we expect it to follow the lines of the highly successful sexual offences review. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, posed an interesting set of questions about elections, turnout, funding and so on. I think that he was hinting at when he thought that the election would be. Of course, I have no idea about that. Those are interesting debates in themselves that we need to pick up. Perhaps the noble Lord will table an Unstarred Question or a Motion for a Wednesday debate, so that we can have an interesting and lengthy debate on the matter.
	Turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, we continue to have a clear policy of decentralising and improving the performance of local government and strengthening the regions. As for the penalty notices from Defra, our experience is that people are eager to engage at local level—parish and neighbourhood—on issues that affect their daily lives. We want to harness that enthusiasm.
	Finally, I turn to my noble friend Lady Kennedy. I listen with great care to my noble friend's concerns; it is our job to address such concerns. We are a Labour Government, and I believe that my noble friend and my noble friend Lord Gould, whom she singled out, have made important contributions to that Government. I make no apology for seeking re-election; I want to ensure that we do more with tax credits, Sure Start, school funding, NHS Direct, the minimum wage and civil partnership. I am very proud of a raft of measures that the Government have introduced, and I believe that my noble friend is too.
	Do I believe that those measures sacrifice our principles? I do not. I believe that as a party and as a Government we to need persuade my noble friend that those are the right measures and I will work closely with her to do so. Do I recognise the importance of common law within that principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and my noble friend asked? Yes, I do. The details must prove the case and it is important that we engage every one of your Lordships involved with those issues in doing so.
	So we believe that these proposals build on a foundation already made. I echo the hope of my noble friend Lady Scotland that the House will join us to enact them and build the trust and confidence of individuals, communities and society in a better future.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Warner, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
	Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after nine o'clock.